It's heading in the American direction
That is because the Tories take their lead directly from Republicans. National conservative group AKA the NAT C's.
Despite the pro-UK stance, National Conservatism was actually the offshoot of a Right-wing US think tank, which sees the movement as having the potential to reshape the narrative for the Conservative Party in the same way the Tea Party did once for the Republicans.
For more scary reading try the list of organisations associated with the Tories.
There's traditionally been something of a ~5 year lag in the UK following America.
Possibly faster. The COVID enquiry has absolutely more than enough information to haul Boris in front of itself. Of course they're still gathering additional evidence and they have to identify how much Rishi knew.
So we may be able to get our Trump wannabe squared away faster than the Americans can get rid of classic Trump.
It is great to see Tories standing up, but doing this before the election is due is a tad too little, too late. He has been very proactive on the green policies of the Tories in the past, but I have seen little evidence of calling out the rhetoric from the likes of Braverman, Patel and 30p Lee.
By all means point me out if this is wrong. I certainly do not believe all Tory MPs are bad, I just feel they have favoured their jobs more than doing what is right.
What's got me is the line that he no longer feels the need to vote with his party due to loyalty and is now focusing on what his constituents need.
**That's what they're voted in to do, look after their constituents, not the party. **
I listened to too much Joe Rogan back in the day and I'm still convinced that the way politics is right now is a dusty bullshit, not democracy.
We used to have to vote for someone to represent us in Parliament because it was a 4 day ride on a horse to get to London, but we're currently living in the age of AI and Blockchain, not horses and carriages.
I'm not saying I have the answer to what new age democracy should look like, but relying on a Party to look after us is not it. Not when we can instantly communicate around the world.
Personally I think the future should be none stop referendums on ideas that we can vote on electronically. Cue the "Oh no, but looks what happened when we had a referendum that one time" and I'll say yes, because it was a one time thing everyone went a bit silly, but when it's an everyday occurrence it will just be another boring thing that nobody but the interested would pay attention to.
So should we legalise weed in this country? The only people bothered to vote would be pot heads, medical users and those that are rabidly against weed. Most of the rest of society would just ignore it.
Net Zero? That would be an interesting one, but the oil barons would have to buy off more votes than the Stop Oil side instead of a few political types.
I'm used to Reddit, so I'm expecting lots of replies off people telling me I'm dumb, so let's see if I'm surprised.
I feel like I remember reading about a hypothesised digital voting system where every voter can either vote for themselves, or pass their vote to a representative, that can in turn pass their own and any collected votes to another representative. But each voter can withdraw their vote from a representative at any time.
So you could still have a representative body, which I think is important for getting work done. But citizens are far more empowered; if you disagree with your elected representative over a particular issue, you can rescind your vote from them temporarily and vote directly on the issue yourself.
I like the idea of this, although there'd need to be a robust verification system in place to make sure people aren't being bullied into passing their votes off to others.
I think it'd generally lead to people being more engaged and politically literate, though. And it could even lead to individuals bargaining with people they know. Like, I could say to my neighbour, "hey, I'll vote your way on this policy that I'm indifferent about if you vote my way on this other policy".
I do wonder how much of an issue disinformation campaigns would be under such a system. Would it increase their influence? Would hate rags like the Daily Mail find themselves with more influence? Or would people start to cotton onto the fact that nothing they suggest improves anything?
Would it increase their influence? Would hate rags like the Daily Mail find themselves with more influence? Or would people start to cotton onto the fact that nothing they suggest improves anything?
Absolutely it would, just look how Cambridge Analytica influenced the Brexit vote, it was basically brainwashing. But that's happened now, it's history and could be taught in schools if it hadn't been swept under the rug...
But that's the thing, "Western Democracy" could flourish because we would have all the debates on the public forums with the outside interference from other states and our own propaganda campaigns going too.
It would still be Politics, but with less Politicians.
My first thought was of thousands of people mindlessly giving their votes to their favorite celebrity, and how horribly that could go.
What your suggesting is called Direct Democracy, everyone votes on everything. But there is a very chilling black mirror episode (pre Netflix, so it's actually good) about why direct democracy doesn't work. Mostly because people are stupid.
Well I mean if we're gonna go to fiction to back up what we try before we try it, I've read lots of books by Iain M Banks that suggest giving up the running of things to benevolent AI is the way to go.
But it's fiction writen by people who have lived in the society we have, not a model of if or how it would work.
But yeah, Direct Democracy is doable now more than at any time in the past, but humans cling to the past. What can I say, I'm a progressive dreamer living in a society of traditions.
This is exactly what a failed republican candidate said about people voting against abortion rights. First google link I can find here. There is a huge difference between being stupid and less informed. The reason MPs can make better decisions is because the access they have to experts. Even then, a lot do not take that advice. Johnson with covid comes straight to mind. The public make bad choices when they are either not informed or in the case of Brexit misinformed.
Direct democracy can work, but the larger the group using it, the more work is needed to inform the participants.
But you've also got the people that seem to go out of their way to be misinformed. The type that post about 5G nanobots on Facebook and post a picture of some water in a glass and claim that it's somehow evidence the earth is flat.
No matter how much educating you do they will never learn.
I disagree. As I said the larger the group the more work you have to do. I do agree some arguments are too complex to field to a large group. Brexit should never have been thrown to the public. However the abortion argument is fine to throw to democracy, because they can see the effects first hand. And in the same light we know which way a second referendum on Brexit will go because again they have first hand information to learn from. This in itself refutes your argument regarding the feasibility that people will never learn.
That’s what they’re voted in to do, look after their constituents, not the party
That is not true. When you stand for a party then you stand for the manifesto it presents. When the vote is based around that, then you have to vote with the party. It is what you were voted in for.
Johnson called a three line whip with the Patterson vote. This is where Tory MPs should have grown a pair. It was not part of the manifesto to change the ministerial code.
A lot of what Tories have voted in was in the manifesto. People were jumping up and down and pointing at it.
I certainly do not believe all Tory MPs are bad
From the leaked WhatsApp groups it's fairly apparent that a lot of the backbenchers at least are absolutely sick of what's happening. The cabinet is still mostly stacked with Boris's hires. Either because they hung around after his firing or because they tend to favour each other when making their own hiring decisions.
After the election I suspect that a lot of the current brass will duck out, and hopefully some of the back benches will challenge Braverman for the party leadership. There is a chance they might be able to sort themselves out but in order to do that they have to lose the next election.
It is a highly debated topic. The consensus seems to be that having Braverman in a leadership role will be bad for the UK. You are giving her a platform without responsibility. Look at how Farage has manipulated that.
The reckoning is that the worst of the Tory party now are making a real attempt at removing the UK from the ECHR. They want to double right down on the crazy so they can milk more cash from the country. The possibilities of this opinion being taking seriously in Tory circles along with Braverman in lead could really do damage to the people of the UK, because they will make a return to power at some point.
Fascism is a Right wing ideology
Absolutley,just look at Israel.
Fascists are huge supporters of Israel.
Of course! The people they tried to wipe out.
The irony of going full circle is lost on them.
Fascism is right wing social policies, left wing economic policies (National Syndicalism, economic interventionism, etc.).
More accurately the Tories going further right is social-authoritarianism with libertarian economics. Like if Truss and Braverman had a bastard child they emotionally abused into a psychopath ultra-capitalist.
@thehatfox
I think we said that in 1980, if not before.
So I am not the only one left that remembers that other big Tory hit ;)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Conservative party is going in a “very dark direction”, a Tory former minister has said, as misinformation around climate continues.
Chris Skidmore, the MP for Kingswood in Gloucestershire, served as energy minister under Theresa May when she signed the target of net zero emissions by 2050 into law.
Skidmore, a loyal Tory who once served as vice-chair of the party, has found himself left behind as many of his colleagues turn their backs on net zero.
Many critics believe Rishi Sunak has focused on stoking the culture wars since becoming prime minister.
“I think the challenge has always been, to what extent you engage with those who have genuine concerns about costs, versus wanting to just use this as a means by which to delay, go slow, to deny.
Skidmore said he was particularly angry about attacks on the Climate Change Committee, an independent body that advises the government on five-year “carbon budgets” necessary to meet its 2050 target, which has been politicised of late by politicians and the media.
The original article contains 979 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Hopefully it's the direction of the dodo.
I can't help sniggering at his name.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(