The state of British politics

[Phil1]

Chippy is a staunch Tory so not a shock he’s a bit fed up and so throwing Labour into the mix to feel better.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How does Angela Rayner fit in with the rest on your list? Seriously trying to figure out how she's made it in comparison to the others.

Seriously? She's utterly revolting in every conceivable respect.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Chippy is a staunch Tory so not a shock he’s a bit fed up and so throwing Labour into the mix to feel better.

Believe me, having to watch Wes Streeting on the TV, doesn't make me feel better. Dear God in heaven.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Seriously? She's utterly revolting in every conceivable respect.

Isn't this the state of politics not people you wouldn't shag even if blind drunk, though?

 

[Summerbuzz]

Baroness Warsi quoted today as saying, there's something rotten at the heart of the Tory party in it's current guise.

That it's wrong - if they are the leading party in the uk over decades, this cannot be allowed.

I guess she's stopped short of saying, fair minds would likely conclude that it amounted to an collective abuse of their position of trust. Many reasonable and conscienscious people would find it hard to justify working in such an organisation.

 

[bluethrunthru]

They helpfully provide proof of their own stupidity on request

 

[Saddleworth2]

No, I get that Sadds, but my point is, the thread title is The State of British Politics. And the opening statement is, Has it ever been this bad.
That’s what you are all feeling at the moment, internally.
I’d wager that you would get a similar or worse response from external countries that were part of the ‘Empire’, so to speak.
The other side of colonialism wouldn’t look on British ‘Politics’ as favourably as yourselves may have done in the past.

You are looking at it from a historical basis which unless you are pretty solidly grounded in political history is pretty tricky to compare.

 

[BrianW]

There are several problems.

1. The voting system is not fit for purpose and gives almost absolute power to the largest minority.

2. Since the 1960s, the personality cult around whoever is the leader of the two main parties has become the main focus. People talk about 'voting for Corbyn' or 'voting for 'Boris'.' The proper system has been forgotten. In this country, we elect individuals, who form parties, from whom a Cabinet is chosen from the majority party. It ought to be government by a Committee not absolute rule by a presidential figure. The PM ought to be primes inter pares.

3. The standard of MPs on average is shockingly bad. That someone like Lee Anderson - to give an extreme example - can be an MP is a national disgrace. I suggest a different selection process. There should be primary elections in each constituency, with all those who choose to register as a supporter of the relevant party eligible to vote. This would cut down on useless saps being chosen by small cliques of party members.

4. Maybe we should grit our teeth and pay our MPs substantially more. This could be balanced by cutting their perks, having mandatory higher standards of behaviour with automatic expulsion for any breach, and a requirement that they do not work in second jobs. Or alternatively, they declare a second income and this is deducted, in full, from their parliamentary salary.

5. Maybe there should be a qualification before anyone stands as a candidate. They should be required to have a good understanding of constitutional law, macroeconomics and critical thinking. I would exempt anyone with a relevant PhD.

6. It should be absolutely illegal for any MP to accept funding from third parties, especially from foreign and non-UK taxpaying entities. This should be classed as corruption, and it and any other forms of corruption should result in prosecution and prison.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

They helpfully provide proof of their own stupidity on request

On 10 March 1914, the suffragette Mary Richardson walked into the National Gallery and attacked Velázquez's canvas with a meat cleaver. Her action was ostensibly provoked by the arrest of fellow suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst the previous day,[66] although there had been earlier warnings of a planned suffragette attack on the collection. Richardson left seven slashes on the painting, particularly causing damage to the area between the figure's shoulders.[17][67] However, all were successfully repaired by the National Gallery's chief restorer Helmut Ruhemann.[12]

Richardson was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the maximum allowed for destruction of an artwork.[68] In a statement to the Women's Social and Political Union shortly afterwards, Richardson explained, "I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history."[67][69] She added in a 1952 interview that she did not like "the way men visitors gaped at it all day long".[70]

The feminist writer Lynda Nead observed, "The incident has come to symbolize a particular perception of feminist attitudes towards the female nude; in a sense, it has come to represent a specific stereotypical image of feminism more generally."[71] Contemporary reports of the incident reveal that the picture was not widely seen as mere artwork. Journalists tended to assess the attack in terms of a murder (Richardson was nicknamed "Slasher Mary"), and used words that conjured wounds inflicted on an actual female body, rather than on a pictorial representation of a female body.[68] The Times described a "cruel wound in the neck", as well as incisions to the shoulders and back.[72]

The painting was attacked again on 6 November 2023 by two Just Stop Oil activists who smashed its protective glass with hammers demanding an end to new oil and gas licences in the UK.[73][74]

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Seriously? She's utterly revolting in every conceivable respect.

What has she said or done that is revolting?