UK Elections 2014

[Clockwork]

I'll also repost my slightly gloomy FB status about the election:

So, the European elections. I am not, in myself, terrified - not quite yet. But I am saddened, and I am unsettled, both at the results in Britain and more so at those across Europe. I am saddened because I believe that, whatever you may think of the structures of European governance, we are stronger in brotherhood and sisterhood than immersed in isolation and vanity. Saddened, too, at the fact that my country is now predominantly represented by two parties in favour of kicking the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society into the gutter. But worst of all, I am unsettled that in fear and anger the peoples of Europe are in many countries seeing their salvation posing with flags and banners - and a nationalism of a sort we have not seen growing strong for many years. This is not a nationalism that celebrates our achievements - it is one which celebrates only our differences, that "we" are not "them" and "they" are not "us". It is the nationalism of blind pride, at a time when Europe may just be beginning to forget where that can lead. It is the nationalism of darker times - and tomorrow, Europe will see day dawn just a little darker.

I genuinely mean all that. I think the rise of nationalists and ultra-nationalists is very disturbing, but if anything gives us a new reason to be inside the EU - because as we know these are European-wide phenomena and if we shut ourselves off from them there is no way we will somehow gain immunity via the English Channel.

Jub as always your speech is impassioned and full of flourish but with an odd lack of, for a lack of a better word, reality.

Subjective/incorrect/misleading points:

EU isn't a brotherhood, sisterhood or any other friendship. It's a business deal. Not being a part of it isn't vanity, it's practicality. Switzerland is vain? Right, didn't think so.

Neither the EU nor Conservatives want to kick the poorest anywhere. Working class conservatives and UKIP supporters are the mainstay of the vote, Lab supporters are more likely going to be middle class apologists than any other party (and have been for a few years now, by the way).

Fear plays a part in voting out of the EU, sure. It's a fairly normal thing to be afraid of losing cultural identity to the volume of immigrants, or in our leaders who think that paying money to a club which we get so little in return is a good idea. Anger? No, not against Europe, not at all. Europe is great. Anger against the people that bought the country a seat at a circle jerk with taxpayer money? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's justified.

Nationalism is a good thing. It's easiest to see with American brand of nationalism as the British are generally 'meh' about most things, especially ourselves. Would America be as great as it is if its people were ambivalent about being American? Hell no. What makes it great is that a huge proportion of the people are very proud of the country they live in, have respect for their ancestors and what they did to make the country great. To be otherwise is at least doing yourself a disservice and at worst being disrespectful to the men and women from generations past who have suffered though the difficulties to make a country what it is today.

Just because you're happy to be one nation doesn't mean you hate the others, it's a friendly rivalry, it's free market.

EDIT: Not in that post but others have: calling UKIP fascists is just plain stupid. They're not authoritarian for one, not violent for another and don't use cultish symbolism for the third.

[Pentagathus]

EU isn't a brotherhood, sisterhood or any other friendship. It's a business deal. Not being a part of it isn't vanity, it's practicality. Switzerland is vain? Right, didn't think so.

Well no, the EU is much more than just a business deal, which is the main reason anti-EU sentiment is so popular. A re-structuring of the EU, or at least a re-negotiation of our relationship with it would probably be enough to satisfy most EU sceptics. I for one would be much happier with a trade agreement such as Norway or Switzerland have.

Fear plays a part in voting out of the EU, sure. It's a fairly normal thing to be afraid of losing cultural identity to the volume of immigrants,

I'd say its not. I'm pretty sure I don't many people who are afraid of losing their cultural identity, your own cultural identity is a private thing and unless you're scared that immigrants are actually going to brainwash you then there really is no logical reason to believe you'll lose it due to immigration. Not to mention the fact that the volume of immigrants is not nearly as great as made out to be by right  leaning media.
And of course culture is not a static thing, much of our current culture is brought from outside of britain in the first place. Well all of it is if you go back far enough.  But what if I were to live outside of the UK for a while? I might well pick up new cultural influences that might not fit in with conventional british cultural identity. So would I now be unwelcome? Afterall I'm probably more likely to influence my british friends and family than a group of economic migrants are.
[/quote]

Nationalism is a good thing. It's easiest to see with American brand of nationalism as the British are generally 'meh' about most things, especially ourselves. Would America be as great as it is if its people were ambivalent about being American? Hell no. What makes it great is that a huge proportion of the people are very proud of the country they live in, have respect for their ancestors and what they did to make the country great. To be otherwise is at least doing yourself a disservice and at worst being disrespectful to the men and women from generations past who have suffered though the difficulties to make a country what it is today.

So should the descendants of slavers and racists in America be proud of said ancestors? Should I be proud of my ancestors who violently conquered a vast empire for their own vanity and greed and started the previously mentioned slave trade? There's plenty of armadillo to go along with the "greatness" of my ancestors and I'd rather not tarnish myself with that thanks. I'd say I take some pride in being british, in being part of a society that is largely tolerant and welcoming to alternative ways of life. But more importantly I'd say I'm grateful to have been brought up in such a society.
The problem with nationalism is that it can blind people to the faults in their own nation and lead to them looking outside for someone to blame instead of tackling the real roots of their problems. I suspect America would be a better place if its inhabitants were more open to introspection and willing to acknowledge their own faults. Not that the same doesn't apply for us of course.

But I'm really not worried by the election results, UKIP have no councils under their control which seems like a pretty good indicator they won't win many seats in a general election, whilst their gains in the european elections don't worry me at all since I'd actually like to see a referendum on the EU (although I'd prefer for it be on a re-negotiated EU relationship such as what Davey C has proposed) and there should still be enough level heads representing us in the EU for now.

[Clockwork]

Well no, the EU is much more than just a business deal, which is the main reason anti-EU sentiment is so popular. A re-structuring of the EU, or at least a re-negotiation of our relationship with it would probably be enough to satisfy most EU sceptics. I for one would be much happier with a trade agreement such as Norway or Switzerland have.

Sorry, are you saying the anti-EU sentiment is because the EU isn't a business deal? If it was just about playing happy buggers with the rest of Europe I can't see how anyone would mind. It's the laws, policies and money which, by the way, culminates in a business deal that people are unhappy about.

Just in case anyone was wondering, the European trading bloc is still a thing also, even if we were out of the EU we'd still have trade, only we could set the import tax and not a body that has no interest in our little island whatsoever. Which is why it's a good thing like Penty says. Yay, I get to agree about something!

I'd say its not. I'm pretty sure I don't many people who are afraid of losing their cultural identity, your own cultural identity is a private thing and unless you're scared that immigrants are actually going to brainwash you then there really is no logical reason to believe you'll lose it due to immigration. Not to mention the fact that the volume of immigrants is not nearly as great as made out to be by right  leaning media.
And of course culture is not a static thing, much of our current culture is brought from outside of britain in the first place. Well all of it is if you go back far enough.  But what if I were to live outside of the UK for a while? I might well pick up new cultural influences that might not fit in with conventional british cultural identity. So would I now be unwelcome? Afterall I'm probably more likely to influence my british friends and family than a group of economic migrants are.

This will take a bit of writing. And it's just plain wrong that the media is right biased when the opposite is true. UKIP candidates get singled out constantly for minor slip ups whereas frequently LD and Lab are made out to be pulling the country back, which is also wrong given how we're doing better (projections and short term) economically with Conservative economics than Labour.

I don't know how often you go to any of the big cities but it's now difficult to argue that cultural identity in some places is compromised. London, the very capital of our country has areas where UK law is superceded by Sharia, same with  Manchester. Segments of cities cut themselves off from the rest, don't speak our language, have their own schools, dives, whatever. It's here in Northampton btw as well, which isn't exactly a big place. In and of itself it's fine, small communities of different nationalities are great, they add so much character and vibrancy but these communities are constantly growing and usually at a rate much higher than the native population.

I love culture, I'm always learning new languages to better integrate myself in foreign countries I can speak decent French, Spanish, Italian with basics in Swedish, German, Portuguese and Arabic. This is not me speaking out of fear or anger or racism or anything like that. Picking up cultural traits is brilliant, I wouldn't for an instant want a purely British country, like many others all I'm saying is that, for now, we have enough people here.

Economic migrants? Not all, not even close and these are the ones that usually learn English and integrate themselves. It's not about influencing people so much, having other cultures influence you helps build a fondness towards them and, hell, we only live 80 years give or take, it's about influencing the area, the architecture etc.

So should the descendants of slavers and racists in America be proud of said ancestors? Should I be proud of my ancestors who violently conquered a vast empire for their own vanity and greed and started the previously mentioned slave trade? There's plenty of armadillo to go along with the "greatness" of my ancestors and I'd rather not tarnish myself with that thanks. I'd say I take some pride in being british, in being part of a society that is largely tolerant and welcoming to alternative ways of life. But more importantly I'd say I'm grateful to have been brought up in such a society.
The problem with nationalism is that it can blind people to the faults in their own nation and lead to them looking outside for someone to blame instead of tackling the real roots of their problems. I suspect America would be a better place if its inhabitants were more open to introspection and willing to acknowledge their own faults. Not that the same doesn't apply for us of course.

The British Empire is still talked about in India as being the best thing to happen to it. Vanity and greed? It's sentiments like this that just have no bearing at all, does anyone know the motivations for carving an Empire? Maybe they did it on a whim for armadillos and giggles, for power and respect, so that France wouldn't laugh at us? Nope, don't think so. Creating an Empire is a monetary investment which is what brings it prestige, not the amount of land you own but how well you can develop it. You acquire a piece of land, peacefully through agreements or not, either way, it doesn't matter all that much (for the next step, not ethically, that's another barrel). Then, because the indigenous population isn't as technologically advanced you bring in these technologies, ways of thinking, etc and uplift them. They may resist due to unfamiliarity or not understand the change at first but after it has been integrated the population sees it for what it is. With India it went well until the East India Company started doing dick things and the Sepoys mutinied but whatever, that was the fault of the admin, not the procedure of colonisation.

That is the ideal scenario. It's the goal but it doesn't always work out that way as I'm sure you can provide many examples of.

The slave trade, welp this'll be a can of worms and things are likely going to be taken out of context but here goes. Hate to use such a pointless argument but if the roles were reversed (the slaves were the slavers of the time and vice versa) you think they would have done anything differently? Nope. We aren't at fault for it, there is no need for anyone for a few generations now to have anything to be sorry about over it. Wasn't us, it was our ancestors. Yes their accomplishments were built on the backs of slaves but they still did great things they just went about doing them totally wrong. It doesn't excuse them but taken as separate as they should be, great things were done. Railways, factories, steam power, proper industrialisation. We made the world better for having those things, British inventors and engineers. So yes, overall I can say that yep, I'm proud to be a part of this nation. I firmly believe all nations are introspective of themselves even if they appear not to be at all. Even France.

UKIP have done well in the European elections, no denying that and while they themselves are set to thinking that this will translate into the general elections, I'm pretty skeptical. I think what will happen though is that at least some parties will take notice that the things that UKIP are about are real issues that concern a good size of the population and hopefully at least think about.

It's easy to take swings at the government but a lot more difficult to acknowledge what the problem actually is, can any of us know? Nope, we don't have access to the collection of data that they do, we have to trust our government that they are making the right decision, and if they aren't then we use democracy to its fullest.

[Pentagathus]

I'm going to be brief this time because I should really get back to revising, might expand later.

Yes I'm saying anti-EU sentiment is because the EU isn't a business deal, it goes well past that. Open borders, CAP, European Court of Human Rights (or whatever the portugal its called) etc are definitely not needed for a business deal. This is just semantics really, it seems like we agree that the EU has too much power over its members as is.

I said right leaning media I think, not all media.

As to areas where immigrants haven't integrated, they are having less effect on cultural identity than those that do integrate. Holding themselves separate doesn't affect native culture much, it instead means you have separate  cultures within one area. I'd agree its not generally a good thing to have large proportions of migrants not being integrated into our culture but perhaps that suggests we need a new approach to integration.

I'm going to have to leave the Empire stuff for later, but are you suggesting that the slave trade was redeemed by the fact that it drove industrial progress? Because that I cannot agree with at all, and it is impossible to take the slave trade and the Empire separately when they were not separate.
You said we don't need to feel guilt for the fact our ancestors exploited slavery because it was long ago and not our own acts. I agree but I could (and do) say exactly the same of our ancestors' achievements.

Edit:
Also I'd prefer the tories to win over labour at the next general election despite the fact I'm generally left leaning. Thats because I suspect labour would carry on the same path as the tories but portugal it up by trying to appear left wing when in fact they're as centralist as the tories are. Ie they're two different buckets of the same armadillo, but the tory bucket seems to leak less.

[Jubal]

I'm not a European federalist, I'd just like to get that clear. I do however believe in some level of EU existence and membership, with the following points:
- The CAP and other European-wide legislation is often un-necessary, but
- actually some of it is very useful, such as directives on employment rights. Having European-wide employment rules does a lot to help stop our businesses being undercut by parts of Europe with cheaper labour. That's the sort of thing that for me is a real gain from the EU, besides which it stops governments watering down European-wide statements of rights. That's the sort of thing that I'd say is a benefit of the EU.
- Also the EU has done huge amounts of work in areas where national governments have failed to deliver, for example in heritage work, in restoring war-torn parts of the Balkans, and ironically in providing protection and recognition for local identities.
- I think the single currency was a mistake, unless the countries within it want a federal budget.
- Trade agreements are obviously good, up to a point, but I think actually countries need better powers to stop companies taking advantage of that and bouncing all over the shop paying near-zilch taxes.
- EU power over its members is massively overplayed, the council of ministers has an effective veto on just about all legislation. If you want to ask why so much is being generated, ask William Hague why he's not preventing it.

On the EHCR: yes, we should be in the European Court of Human Rights. No, the European Court of Human Rights does not have anything at all to do with the EU, they're totally separate entities. The tropes that are rolled out on this front are pretty much uniformly wrong or silly - for example the various deportation cases. Whether we were in the EU or not, there is no moral justification for sending someone abroad to face trial if they will face a trial process that would not be admissible here. I'd only be in favour of withdrawing from the European court if we got a cast-iron guarantee/some sort of specially safeguarded law that enshrined the same level of rights within the UK. Every proposal for withdrawal (eg British bills of rights) has involved watering down the safeguards the European court gives us.

In terms of nationalism, I agree that there are things that it's OK to be proud of about your country. I just don't think it's a good thing if people are proud about their country simply in opposition to others. For example, take World War Two. I am immensely proud of what Britain achieved there, but I'm proud of it because we were vital to the effort that stopped fascism in Europe, not simply because we won and the others lost. It's the latter form of nationalism that UKIP appeals to, the idea that Britain is only a country to be proud of to the extent that we can win, as if this was some kind of primary school egg and spoon race. This is world geopolitics, not sports day, and we have so many other things we can do and be proud of - discovery of DNA, Natural Selection, and Gravity, one of the first countries to abolish slavery, the country that formulated parliamentary democracy - that we shouldn't spend our time being proud of the bits that were only achievements created by beating someone else. I'm proud of British engineering, I'm not proud of the British Empire, and so on.

Your view of empire is just not borne out by the facts. Empires are of course not purely coercive structures, if that's what you're getting at, but the purpose of Empire was never development of conquered lands, it was exploitation of them. For the Persians the Empire brought manpower, levies, and rents, for the Romans it brought slaves. Of course as new upper classes moved to exploit land they then gained some interest in its development, but this was always incidental to profit motives. Many imperial projects involved near-extermination of local populations (the British in America being a prime example) in order to open up land for European-style commercial agriculture. The British were if anything the imperial power worst at trying to integrate local populations. Also there are massive problems with seeing "Europeanising" influences as universally beneficial or only resisted as a result of misunderstandings. Many conquered peoples knew damn well what European missionaries were trying to force on them and wanted none of it - the instruments of European statehood were a means of control. The fact that these were then gained and appropriated by local peoples is obviously good, but that was a result of decolonisation not colonisation. There just isn't a historical basis for claiming that the British Empire was about bringing the torches of enlightenment and liberty to poor uncultured peoples around the world. It's a nice story to tell ourselves but it's not true.

Sharia law has not really superseded UK law anywhere, that's massively over the top scaremongering. Only a few percent (maybe 5% I think?) of the population is Muslim and very few of those follow any strict form of sharia. Radicalisation of young muslims is a problem, and a very real one, but many of these communities actually have century-old roots now so the cultural issue is a real and British one caused by homegrown radicalism not immigration. We can't conflate Islamic extremism with immigration, the numbers just don't add up. Speaking as someone who is from a very traditional part of England, I don't feel my culture is under serious threat from Islam or sharia - the threat of rolling cultural Americanisation is eclipsing British culture far more effectively than Islam. Of course I'm worried about religious extremism, but that is not predominantly an immigration issue.

On the media, I'd argue what they have is a status quo bias. It's not a leftwing bias or a rightwing bias so much as a bias towards a) the established parties and b) making sensationalist news. The pre-election coverage was to some extent biased against UKIP, the election night coverage was to some extent undeniably biased in favour of them, I think it's reasonable to say.

[Pentagathus]

No, the European Court of Human Rights does not have anything at all to do with the EU, they're totally separate entities.

Well now I feel like a dumdum.

[Jubal]

Don't worry, it's confusing. The EU does have a smallish judicial wing, the European Court of Justice, which is there to enforce EU treaties and doesn't have any major human rights remit. I'm not sure you could reasonably abolish that though as even if we just had a Europe-wide trade agreement someone needs to settle disputes when they arise.

[Clockwork]

I was using sharia as an example of culture overriding the pre-existing one, nothing else. It has happened, is acknowledged in one area of London I believe but is practised in many other parts illegally :/ (off topic though) But yes, you're correct it's a little over 5% of the population is Muslim, it's not a huge amount on paper but its not an even distribution across the whole of the UK.

About empire, I'll assume we've been reading different material, listening to different lectures with their own bias, development/exploitation can overlap, it's not as clear cut as Empire is good/bad as with all there are both. "The road to damnation is oft paved with good intentions." etc.

The problem with your view on the cultural assimilation as you point out is that you're in a pretty secluded and (probably) mostly white, English speaking area. Northampton has a vast number of east European labourers, technicians, skilled and unskilled workers but also we have Polish gangs and drug/gun trafficking. Almost any street will have at least 3 or 4 different nationality shops/cafes or whatever. In the town centre I can go for about half an hour without hearing a word of English, its things like this which, while I (and many others I've spoken with) are ok with the amount we have, don't want any increase on.

Agreed so far as news coverage is I guess but I'd say that the content parts and coverage not news (e.g. soaps, comedy shows, panel shows etc) are still very much leftwing. I'm pretty convinced this is how it'll always be due to the personalities that create this entertainment are more likely going to be 'people persons' and equate this, rightly or wrongly, with the left.

[Jubal]

I live in two areas - one (Norfolk) very culturally homogeneous, the other being Cambridge which is extremely culturally diverse and has a huge variety of languages spoken. I generally feel more comfortable in the latter area; I agree that there can be tensions as a result of language barriers etc but I think that's an assimilation not an immigration issue really. Also Norfolk isn't that secluded, it's really pretty representative of the UK as a whole, the polish population certainly isn't small though actually it's decreasing over time. Also the birth rates of immigrant groups will and do slow down over time, a lot of it's just that migrant groups tend to be worse off and worse off people of all cultures tend to have more children.

Do you have a source for sharia being "acknowledged" somewhere in London? Because I'm 99.99% sure that's not happened.

In terms of Empire it's not simply a case of varying bias, the British influence in America is a specialist topic for me so I've read a very broad range of the academic literature. Of course Empires aren't universally pure evil, but primarily the dynamic in every Empire I know of has been material and labour exploitation. Secondary dynamics can include "improvement", but often this is done in a way that invalidates and suppresses any good parts of the local culture. Best example of that, the havoc wreaked by the Romans on the Celts, Punic, and Greek cultures. Celtic metalwork was considerably better than the Roman stuff, but that skill was actually lost via cultural disruption. The other thing is that a lot of "improvement" ideas also increase the reliance of subject populations on their Imperial overlords - back to America, the destruction of native polities and peoples was exacerbated by their reliance on European imports which ended up with them losing their ability to function outside the European trade system. So yes, of course it's not totally the case that Empire was just a simple case of white Europeans being evil, but I don't think you've made anything like a complete case to suggest that the dominant dynamic wasn't gain and oppression at the expense of what were seen as inferior races. Even the relatively pro-native Jesuits in French Canada always referred to the locals as savages, and I don't see how you can paint the near-destruction of native peoples as anything other than mostly a gain-driven system.

[TTG4]

As far as sharia courts go I stumbled across this while looking for stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal and also this http://www.shariahcouncil.org/

Of course some parts of the press report it like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587215/Sharia-Law-enshrined-British-legal-lawyers-guidelines-drawing-documents-according-Islamic-rules.html

[Clockwork]

Thanks TTG4

I spend quite a bit of time in cambridge and ely due to half my family being there, it's nothing like what we have here in northants, not even close

Uplifting a people is good. Exterminating them to do so is bad. This is what I have been saying. In India, there were British who wanted to uplift the people and weren't driven solely by profit. I believe we're arguing two separate things. (still off topic though)

[Jubal]

Yeah, that's what I thought. These tribunals exist, but they're no more legally binding than the opinions of a marriage counsellor or anyone else you get to try and arbitrate a dispute: legally they have no actual power. Whether it's a good thing that they exist is a different matter, of course, but the fact remains that this does not constitute a recognition of sharia in the law, only that people can attempt to operate according to sharia (or any other arbitrary ruleset) within British law.

As I said before, of course some colonists will have good intentions and a smaller number of those will act on them. But overall we should be proud of those specific people as individuals not the idea of Empire in general which was primarily driven by a search for personal independence or financial gain, and was the vast majority of the time achieving that at the expense of the local people, though as you say there were some exceptional cases.

Anyway, back to the topic and the UK elections - to conclude all the asides, I still feel that a) UKIP are currently very much a party whose policies do not reflect working class interests. They may of course become that party over time as their electorate puts pressure on them, but the UKIP manifesto offers working people very little economically. Also b) as we've discussed, pride in national achievements is not necessarily negative, but pride in your country in the sense that you're rooting for a team and trying only to beat the other teams is a problematic sentiment and it's that competitive, isolationist rhetoric that I think fuels UKIP to some measure and far more obviously boosts further right parties on the continent.

I do also think that what we get out of Europe is poorly explained to people, not least because a lot of it is in legal safeguards rather than active benefits. I for one feel safer inside a European system locked together by treaties and trade because I feel like it improves relations between governments, decreases the chance of wars breaking out, and puts pressure on my government not to buckle under pressure to water down human rights laws. I think there are big problems with it too, but for me the benefits definitely outweigh the negatives.

[TTG4]

So we've got a by-election for the pretty much ignored PCCs in the west midlands today. Both labour and the tories say they'll do things which are either pushing their remit or not a part of it. The Lib Dem candidate didn't say what he'd do just told a story about how he saved someones life (which was different to the same story he used last time) and refused to appear on the BBC claiming it was biased towards Israel over Gaza. The UKIP candidate is essentially Jeremy Clarkson and pushes the idea that the police prosecute motorists because they're bored and can't be arsed going after real criminials.

I don't really care who wins, so long as it isn't the UKIP guy, the turnout will be the most interesting thing. Purely on partly lines I'd usually vote Lib Dem 1st and Labour 2nd, but I don't like the Lib Dem candidate or the way he's run his campaign this time so voted Labour 1st and Tory 2nd.

[TTG4]

Labour got it, on a turn out of 10%. A labour council leader in Birmingham has come out and called these elections an 'affront to democracy'. I have to say, they really don't seem worth the cost of staging them.

[Jubal]

Ten percent? Christ, that is awful. We usually beat that by a significant margin for Exilian elections.