UK General Election 4th July

[Satinavian]

Ah, had to (shamefully) look up how exactly the parliament in the U.K. works. I knew two houses and stuff... but i was a bit weirded out when i saw: Reform UK: 14% of votes only 1% of seats. So only direct mandates? Wow... that seems... unfair and shit. Now you have ~15 percent of voters in a constant angry/frustrated state. (Not that we here on the other side of the canal have a fair system... also pretty angry people here too, sigh.)

Yes, the fun of First-past-the-Post voting. Which most of the world does not use for this reason.

It also tends to promote two main parties and polarized politics. But good luck getting the oldest uninterrupted parliamentary gouvernment setup to fundamentally change.


But it feels good to see the Tories trashed.

 

[Silvanus]

Cabinet appointments coming.

Chancellor of the Exchequer: Rachel Reeves
Sec. of State for Housing/Deputy PM: Angela Rayner
Foreign Secretary: David Lammy
Sec. of State for Home Dept.: Yvette Cooper
Defence Secretary: John Healey
Justice Secretary: Shabana Mahmood
Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster: Pat McFadden
Energy Secretary: Ed Miliband
Health Secretary: Wes Streeting
Education Secretary: Bridget Phillipson

 

[Burnhardt]

Yes, the fun of First-past-the-Post voting. Which most of the world does not use for this reason.

It also tends to promote two main parties and polarized politics. But good luck getting the oldest uninterrupted parliamentary gouvernment setup to fundamentally change.


But it feels good to see the Tories trashed.

Labour Party conference backs proportional representation

In a historic vote, Labour Party Conference has voted for a manifesto commitment to proportional representation for general elections.This is

www.electoral-reform.org.uk

Well they can implement it with their healthy majority now can't they. Of course that will mean giving up over 300 seats.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Just remembering the reported poll they did for Sunak before election, asking people the first word to that comes to mind when describing him -with the legacy news airing the result using this visual non-bubble graph format;

 

[Catfood220]

Well, it is with great disappointment, but no real surprise, that my old stomping ground of Skegness and Boston in Lincolnshire voted in Reform.

The bunch of banjo strumming, sister fucking, inbred hicks.

Sadly I still have family and friends that live there, so I can't avoid the place.

 

[Hades]

Its nice to see the Tories get almost universal maligned for 14 years of misrule, but while its a democratic faux pass to say it, the British public has been pretty complicit in all that. 14 years and several elections should have been more then enough for the British public to vote them out, but often they just doubled down on the Tories even as disasters piled up.

Cameron's ruthless austerity was electorate rewarded in part because the public were more invested in how his rival ate a sandwich. Then with Brexit the electorate allowed themselves to get swindled and long after this became apparent they doubled down and actually decided that giving Bojo who caused the whole mess a majority was the way to go.

I can sympathize with the public's outrage about the decline of British living standards, but if you vote for the austerity party that's there for the upper class then you get harsh austerity for all except the upper class. And if you decided to torch all your trading agreements with your neighbors then you get a worse economy, and if you elect Boris Johnson you get incompetence and scandal. Since its their country on the line the voters have a right to be angry at all those things, but honestly what else were they expecting when voting for the conservatives?

The electorate can get some leeway due to the damage of austerity often taking some time to emerge and in generally it being a time the poor weren't sympathized much with, but every election after the electorate should have know better.

 

[Trunkage]

Its nice to see the Tories get almost universal maligned for 14 years of misrule, but while its a democratic faux pass to say it, the British public has been pretty complicit in all that. 14 years and several elections should have been more then enough for the British public to vote them out, but often they just doubled down on the Tories even as disasters piled up.

Cameron's ruthless austerity was electorate rewarded in part because the public were more invested in how his rival ate a sandwich. Then with Brexit the electorate allowed themselves to get swindled and long after this became apparent they doubled down and actually decided that giving Bojo who caused the whole mess a majority was the way to go.

I can sympathize with the public's outrage about the decline of British living standards, but if you vote for the austerity party that's there for the upper class then you get harsh austerity for all except the upper class. And if you decided to torch all your trading agreements with your neighbors then you get a worse economy, and if you elect Boris Johnson you get incompetence and scandal. Since its their country on the line the voters have a right to be angry at all those things, but honestly what else were they expecting when voting for the conservatives?

The electorate can get some leeway due to the damage of austerity often taking some time to emerge and in generally it being a time the poor weren't sympathized much with, but every election after the electorate should have know better.

While that sandwich thing was stupid and for some reason effected the poles, Cameron won on an anti-migrant platform, blaming them for the 'slow' results from his austerity policies

Like normal, migrants are scapegoats. But with Brexit, there is no way you can blame immigrants anymore and the policies of the Tories were still damaging soceity. So bye, bye Tories. Maybe learn what austerity does to an economy but I have little hope as they still hold up Thatcher as a good PM even though she caused two recession just in her own term

 

[Baffle]

Well well well, it looks like a Labour government might win Euro 2024.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Its nice to see the Tories get almost universal maligned for 14 years of misrule, but while its a democratic faux pass to say it, the British public has been pretty complicit in all that. 14 years and several elections should have been more then enough for the British public to vote them out, but often they just doubled down on the Tories even as disasters piled up.

Cameron's ruthless austerity was electorate rewarded in part because the public were more invested in how his rival ate a sandwich. Then with Brexit the electorate allowed themselves to get swindled and long after this became apparent they doubled down and actually decided that giving Bojo who caused the whole mess a majority was the way to go.

I can sympathize with the public's outrage about the decline of British living standards, but if you vote for the austerity party that's there for the upper class then you get harsh austerity for all except the upper class. And if you decided to torch all your trading agreements with your neighbors then you get a worse economy, and if you elect Boris Johnson you get incompetence and scandal. Since its their country on the line the voters have a right to be angry at all those things, but honestly what else were they expecting when voting for the conservatives?

The electorate can get some leeway due to the damage of austerity often taking some time to emerge and in generally it being a time the poor weren't sympathized much with, but every election after the electorate should have know better.

Is noticeable tendency for some to blame whole populations for the election of their leaders, but sadly that is not how democracy works most the time in our western nations, also it is kinda harmful and even dangerous fallacious thinking that paves an easy path for genocide apologism at its logical end point. I hope Owen Jones can articulate the issues much more eloquently than my fumbling attempts to communicate;

 

[Seanchaidh]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/labour-backtracks-decision-drop-objection-icc-arrest-warrants

"Labour" lied, quelle surprise

 

[crimson5pheonix]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/labour-backtracks-decision-drop-objection-icc-arrest-warrants

"Labour" lied, quelle surprise

I'm actually not going to say Labour lied on this one. They never promised in the first place. The report saying they were going to was so vague and unsubstantiated that I just assumed the news people were lying. "Fake News", one might say.

But yeah, no surprise Labour isn't going to hold Israel to account. They expelled all their Jews who weren't toeing the line over the last few years, why would anyone think they'd backtrack now that they're in power?

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm actually not going to say Labour lied on this one. They never promised in the first place. The report saying they were going to was so vague and unsubstantiated that I just assumed the news people were lying. "Fake News", one might say.

But yeah, no surprise Labour isn't going to hold Israel to account. They expelled all their Jews who weren't toeing the line over the last few years, why would anyone think they'd backtrack now that they're in power?

they're pieces of shit either way

 

[Silvanus]

^ at present none of this is confirmed; it's reported by the tabloid Maariv without corroboration from the gov. We'll know for sure on July 26th (the UK's extended deadline for submissions to the ICC).

If confirmed, that's a reprehensible decision.

 

[Seanchaidh]

^ at present none of this is confirmed; it's reported by the tabloid Maariv without corroboration from the gov. We'll know for sure on July 26th (the UK's extended deadline for submissions to the ICC).

If confirmed, that's a reprehensible decision.

It is very consistent with Lammy's fawning. Not just logically but thematically.

 

[Silvanus]

It is very consistent with Lammy's fawning. Not just logically but thematically.

Unfortunately I can't disagree with that.

 

[Silvanus]

"Labour" lied, quelle surprise

But yeah, no surprise Labour isn't going to hold Israel to account. They expelled all their Jews who weren't toeing the line over the last few years, why would anyone think they'd backtrack now that they're in power?

To follow up, Labour have indeed dropped the UK's objection to the ICC warrant.

Seems it was just tabloid speculation that they'd backtracked. Maariv never had anything from the gov to suggest they had.

Labour have also restored funding to UNRWA.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

To follow up, Labour have indeed dropped the UK's objection to the ICC warrant.

Seems it was just tabloid speculation that they'd backtracked. Maariv never had anything from the gov to suggest they had.

Labour have also restored funding to UNRWA.

Credit where it's due for at least doing the bare minimum. Though it must be galling to all the Jews they expelled for saying Israel was committing a genocide.

 

[Agema]

To follow up, Labour have indeed dropped the UK's objection to the ICC warrant.

So, as I read somewhere, the Tories took up the objection on the behest of the USA.

This is probably because, as I recall, the USA is not a signatory to the ICC. Being a signatory would (morally) oblige the USA not to take actions deleterious to the principles of the ICC, and hey, if the USA wants to turn a blind eye to the odd genocide by its allies, it doesn't want embarrassment from adverse rulings. I assume the USA therefore does not have standing to make a representation to the ICC, or at least that it may be inappropriate to make a representation to it because doing so would be an implicit recognition of the ICC. So it nudged a pliable country into doing its dirty work for it, and the UK is relatively responsive to US wishes.

 

[Trunkage]

So, as I read somewhere, the Tories took up the objection on the behest of the USA.

This is probably because, as I recall, the USA is not a signatory to the ICC. Being a signatory would (morally) oblige the USA not to take actions deleterious to the principles of the ICC, and hey, if the USA wants to turn a blind eye to the odd genocide by its allies, it doesn't want embarrassment from adverse rulings. I assume the USA therefore does not have standing to make a representation to the ICC, or at least that it may be inappropriate to make a representation to it because doing so would be an implicit recognition of the ICC. So it nudged a pliable country into doing its dirty work for it, and the UK is relatively responsive to US wishes.

In essence, the USA wants to commit war crimes but delusionally pretends it can hold who the USA wants to account for similar crimes.

Everyone else says, 'nah' because rules are meant for everyone

 

[Agema]

In essence, the USA wants to commit war crimes but delusionally pretends it can hold who the USA wants to account for similar crimes.

Everyone else says, 'nah' because rules are meant for everyone

Pretty much. Rules-based systems are useful for entities that desire protection from stronger ones, and to the strong ones when they can reliably control the system. Necessarily therefore strong countries tend to skip systems they cannot control and which may hold them to account for breaking rules.

The USA played a major part in setting up the global postwar systems as it provided a means for the USA to control the world, or at least the part of the world that aligned with it, and to regulate the potential for conflict with the major power bloc which didn't align. The USA's increasing disinterest in the rules-based order it set up reflects the fact that the USSR collapsed and left it temporarily hegemonic, and then that as that hegemony rapidly faded it can no longer dominate the system as reliably as it used to.