UK General Election thread

[Dauphin]

Product regulations.

For example...?

[Dauphin]

I'm not saying there aren't any, but people who are anti-EU tend to talk in bland generics, and not cite specific examples of where there is failure. Or if they do, cite inaccuracies such as the concept of metric martyrs or bendy bananas.

[kentonio]

That, true or not, (I hadn't heard of it), is totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

Except it isnt. You're doing your normal thing of equating the health of corporations with the health of countries, and I'm pointing out that's stupid. See? Completely on point.

[C0ckney]

one thing about the tory victory is that it makes an in/out EU referendum much more likely; cameron won't be able to back out now. he'll have his negotiation and i think we can all guess, given the great skills he's shown in that department thus far, how it will go. perhaps it will coincide with the french election, where the eurosceptic marine la pen could be in with a chance...

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm not saying there aren't any, but people who are anti-EU tend to talk in bland generics, and not cite specific examples of where there is failure. Or if they do, cite inaccuracies such as the concept of metric martyrs or bendy bananas.

Like in the US, there isn't any one regulation you can point to to say "this is hurting the economy significantly". It's a death by a thousand cuts. It's an institution that is basically growing its bureaucracy out of control. The regulations, at least in the US, and the indications seem to be that the EU is even words than the US feds, are so complicated only enormous teams of lawyers could hope to understand them enough to follow them. The legal expenses, nevermind the cost of implementation, are enormous. Plus the EU seems to be very anti-trade. One thing I hear of the EU doing a lot is regulating GMO food, which is obviously intended to protect European farmers who don't use such technologies to the extent American farmers do. I strongly doubt the anti-trust lawsuits against Google, Microsoft and so on would occur if the companies were European. And so on.

And the institution itself strikes me as remarkably undemocratic. The EU parliament is truly huge. Too huge for any lawmaker to have any significant degree of power. In the US, even a single representative is powerful enough to make sure that his district doesn't get screwed somehow. Is an MEP from Slovenia capable of that? From the sound of things, most of the laws (in the form of regulations) are passed by some unelected council or bureaucratic organization, with little in the way of checks and balances.

[giblets]

For some reason they don't think they should form a single market without harmonizing their economic regulations.

[pchang]

I'm not saying there aren't any, but people who are anti-EU tend to talk in bland generics, and not cite specific examples of where there is failure. Or if they do, cite inaccuracies such as the concept of metric martyrs or bendy bananas.

The whole banana thing is clearly a protectionist measure. Same thing with forcing cucumbers to be straight.

[korn469]

Why is the presumption that non-voters are liberal?

I never said that. For all I know everyone who didn't vote is far more conservative than the conservatives.

So?

I think it's undemocratic.

[Uncle Sparky]

The whole banana thing is clearly a protectionist measure.

Let the bananas choose!!!

Same thing with forcing cucumbers to be straight.

LBGT cucumbers are people too!!!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

P J O'Rourke on the election. With asides by me.

"Accurate Predictions About Today, Delivered First Thing Tomorrow."
That should be the motto of the pollster, pundit, and reporter industry.
The British have voted Conservative - not by an overwhelming margin. But a "whelming" margin will do.
Go ahead, blame it on Scotland. In the once solidly red-rosette glens and braes and lochs and heather the Scottish National Party snatched the sporran, ripped the kilt off and walked away in the ghillie brogues of Labour.
Fears were had about a "support and supply" deal between Labour and the SNP allowing Labour to form a minority government that would swear it wasn't in a coalition with the SNP but would be up the Firth of Forth without a paddle lacking SNP votes.
Off-putting, I guess - the notion that Britain would, to a degree, be governed by a party that's opposed to British governance. As if the US had a governmental legislative body totally opposed to everything about the US president's government. Hmmm.
But beside the fact that the election's outcome seemed to come as a complete surprise to the electorate, there were other aspects of this election that baffled an American.
For one thing, telling the candidates apart. To American eyes and ears David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even Nigel Farage had the same accents, same suits, same gestures - four British Mitt Romneys. We too had a Mitt Romney, but we could tell him apart from Barack Obama.

To our more refined British senses, we really weren't sure Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and Farage even came from the same species.

Of course, I could tell the difference between the men and Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola bore a strong resemblance - not least in the demands she intended to make on Ed Miliband - to my ex-wife's divorce lawyer.
Also, what was with the SNP formerly being headed by a person called Salmond and now by a person called Sturgeon? Something fishy, an American suspects.
However, I visited Glasgow and liked the SNP supporters better than those of any other party. Not for reasons of political agreement. I'm what, if I were a Brit, you'd call a Countryside Alliance Tory bog-trotter.

We already have a noun for that, and it rhymes with "blunt".

Maybe it was the pan-Celtic craic. SNP backers were full of good cheer.
Everyone else was pretty glum. And for good reason.
The campaign slogans alone tell us why the major parties failed to ignite fiery public enthusiasm during the campaign:
Labour: "A better plan for a better future."
Conservatives: "A better future for you, your family and Britain."
Liberal Democrats: "The real alternative."
Conservatives were supposed to be in trouble because the economy was doing well - in no place except Southeast England. Turns out Brits weren't "all in it together" with the austerity programme.
Conservatives were also in trouble for vowing to cut social spending while refusing to say what social spending they'd cut.
Labour was in trouble for vowing to increase social spending while refusing to say where the money would come from.
Perhaps the money would come from a "mansion tax" on homes worth more than £2m. Trouble is, maybe you bought a little flat in Maida Vale for ten thousand quid in 1976. You're living in a mansion, mate.
And the Liberal Democrats were in trouble for being collared and leashed in coalition with the Conservatives. "Sit." "Stay." "Come." "Good doggies!"
Especially in the matter of Lib Dem promises to "beg" for lower tuition fees. Instead they played dead.
Conservatives looked as if they might lose votes to UKIP.
Labour did lose votes to the SNP.
Lib Dems lost votes to everyone.
And "major party" was a kind of courtesy title for the Lib Dems anyway. By membership, the SNP is the third largest political party in the UK.
Thus Britain's fate was, I thought, in the hands of what might be called the "major-minor" parties.
The Green party never polled well, running consistently last among the major-minors even though we Americans think of the UK as an ecology-besotted nature-lovey nation to the extent of even banning fox hunts (as a poultry owner, I tell you a fox is nothing but a rat in haute couture).

Well, no Peej. Fox hunts are still entirely legal. You just shoot them, rather than chasing them around with dogs and horses. It's far more efficient.

But these days every political party in the UK - UKIP perhaps excepted - mouths the "green" part of the Green platform.
The Greens were reduced to advocating such things as an across-the-board 10% reduction of public transport fares.
UKIP was the fashionable worry for a while. UKIP sometimes polled as well as Lib Dems and Greens put together.
A Conservative/UKIP coalition would - so fretting pundits told me - push the UK so far from Europe that the White Cliffs of Dover would never be visible from that continent again. And immigration would be limited to pasty-faced holders of multiple technical degrees whose parents had been born south of the River Tweed and east of Hay-on-Wye.
To be fair to UKIP, Nigel Farage did his best to emphasise the reasonable-sounding parts of the UKIP platform - is the EU perhaps a bad deal for Britain? Could the money the EU costs Britain be better spent elsewhere? But, from what I could tell by speaking to UKIP supporters, the party is, basically, a protest against modernity.
Meanwhile, I should have been paying more attention to the SNP. Why did the Scots decide against independence and then sign up in droves with the party that's for it?
Labour in particular was gravely perplexed by this "Scottish Question" and suffered grave consequences for its perplexity.
Labour, I have the answer to the Scottish Question right at home, although I'm afraid it's too late now.
You see, Labour, your party, like the Scots themselves, opposed independence. But...
I may say that my kid is immature, ignorant, uncoordinated and not ready to be out on his own in the world (he is a bit clumsy, has trouble remembering what nine nines are, and he's only 11, so I'm quite right). But if you call my kid a dopey young klutz, God help you.
But back to being baffled by your election.
The economy was touted as the biggest issue. Yet how much can politics control an economy?
The Conservatives said they'd "create two million jobs." Can be done. Outlaw the Internet and hire two million people to run around with forked sticks delivering email messages.
Politicians can't predict the next purse-shattering economic event. We don't know what's about to happen that will change everything.
A sudden spike in global demand for haggis makes Dundee the tartan Dubai.
Or a collapse of the Chinese economy sends us all back to work in the dark, satanic mills making our own tracksuits and trainers.
Then there was the issue of taxes - higher rates, lower rates, imposts upon people whose houses were just too darn big. But nothing about the tax system.
Like the 20% VAT - a plain tax on the poor. Rich people save their money or invest their money or hide their money in the Cayman Islands. Poor people spend their money. And every time they do they get whopped with the VAT.
The NHS was an issue. Every party agreed that the NHS is brilliant, wonderful, a national treasure. But if the NHS is brilliant, wonderful and a national treasure, why was every party promising to fix it?

Well, that's the inevitable nature of national treasures, as any palace-owner would agree. They need to be maintained properly.

And national defence was hardly an issue at all. The SNP and the Greens did bring up Trident submarines, but only to ask them to take a dive. And UKIP suggested that the military taking the Queen's sixpence be given a ha'penny more.
Otherwise...
True there's no Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo on the scene. But there's a fellow in Russia who'd be all three if he could. And he's got the bomb.
And has peace in the Middle East been achieved while I wasn't watching?

Who in the Middle East are we supposed to be nuking? Last time I heard, we only had them for defence, and the only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel

And China? Is China tired of sitting on the kiddie booster seat at the Axis of Evil table?
But it isn't any of my business. I'm not a Brit. I'm just a reporter from a distant land. I didn't have a dog in this fight. Or whatever the modern, sensitive, PC equivalent to that phrase is ("Didn't have any bacteria in this yoghurt"?). So I'll butt out now.
Your election is over. You've got the freely elected, lawful, democratic government that Great Britain is famous for. That, indeed, Great Britain invented.
And I hope Great Britain stays great and stays Britain in that Scotland doesn't get off Scot free followed by Wales, and Northern Ireland and Cornwall and Yorkshire and, I don't know, Stonehenge, leaving you the United Kingdom of the Queen and her corgis.

[Bereta_Eder]

marine le pen recently got obliterated by sarkozi who is marine le pen with a more rounded speech and pro-banks, sorry pro-EU.
it's good if hollande managed to hold true to his words but he couldn't which made sarkozi seem ok again :/

[Dauphin]

Like in the US, there isn't any one regulation you can point to to say "this is hurting the economy significantly". It's a death by a thousand cuts. It's an institution that is basically growing its bureaucracy out of control. The regulations, at least in the US, and the indications seem to be that the EU is even words than the US feds, are so complicated only enormous teams of lawyers could hope to understand them enough to follow them. The legal expenses, nevermind the cost of implementation, are enormous. Plus the EU seems to be very anti-trade. One thing I hear of the EU doing a lot is regulating GMO food, which is obviously intended to protect European farmers who don't use such technologies to the extent American farmers do. I strongly doubt the anti-trust lawsuits against Google, Microsoft and so on would occur if the companies were European. And so on.

And the institution itself strikes me as remarkably undemocratic. The EU parliament is truly huge. Too huge for any lawmaker to have any significant degree of power. In the US, even a single representative is powerful enough to make sure that his district doesn't get screwed somehow. Is an MEP from Slovenia capable of that? From the sound of things, most of the laws (in the form of regulations) are passed by some unelected council or bureaucratic organization, with little in the way of checks and balances.

Fair points, but if you want to say that these regulations are bad, you need to put a cost on them against the benefit they give. To the first, many governments usually put a price on these things like "cut red tape, saving £x million". To the second, cutting red tape that says we shouldn't have mercury in school kids drinking water could save money, but not really be a great benefit. Do we recall our recent discussion on whether a second person in the cabin of a plane is a good or bad thing?

On a wider note:

i) Given you cite U.S. as being the same, would you ever advocate a state leaving the union because of regulation, or do you consider it a small price to pay for the other benefits that it brings.
ii) As a Google parallel. Do you think that it is a good idea for the UK to leave the EU to reduce excessive regulation that it can challenge, for it to be replaced by putative legislation that it can't influence. I'm thinking financial regulations, such as EUR clearing, which currently can be performed in the UK under EU law, but could be revoked if the UK left the EU.

[Ben Kenobi]

i) Given you cite U.S. as being the same, would you ever advocate a state leaving the union because of regulation, or do you consider it a small price to pay for the other benefits that it brings.

False analogy. Are you saying that a US state at present has a currency like the pound?

The last state to have this, was Texas.

[Dauphin]

No, it has a currency like the dollar.

[giblets]

I'm pretty sure Hawaiian dollars lasted longer than Confederate dollars or the Texas dollar.