I started to watch Question Time this evening. Didn't take long before I was reminded why I hate QT and switched it off again, but in that brief period I did get the chance to see Stephen Kinnock for the first time. Must admit I was actually quite impressed. I expected to dislike him, much like the rest of the 'red princes', but he does come across very well and seems to have a brain on his shoulders.

Of course, the issue they were mostly discussing before I got too sick of Charlotte Church to watch any further was Trident. Kinnock was dealt a bum deal here because his own view is diametrically opposed to that of his party leader, so he had to express that view while downplaying the absurdity of supporting a leader with whom he fundamentally disagrees. I expect we'll see much more of this over the next 4 and a half years. It's all very well to say "well, Jeremy has his view...", but at some point Labour has to settle on an agreed policy platform, and Jeremy's view on many issues is going to be very different to where most voters and indeed PLP members are at. How long is this going to be sustainable for would you day Dan ?

hacker

So it is saying that, in Canada, the Cabinet is actually part of the Queen's Privy Council [Canadian Privy Council, whatever]?

Yes. BUT the Privy council almost never meets and really doesn't serve its function anymore.
To be named a Privy councilor is an honorific that members of Cabinet and ersons appointed to the Privy Council as an honor, carry with them for the rest of their life.
I think the Privy Council has only actually met and acted maybe twice in the last 100 years. Both to do with assenting to royal marriages I think.

hacker

Also I do not think ricky was assuming, if I read that right he was reading from his own country's constitution, no?

I was assuming about the UK Privy council. Canada has a written Constitution. The UK does not. I just assumed that our Constitution was written following the UK as it was in 1867....And perhaps it was.Not really important since its function has been made almost by not quite redundant by the evolution of parliament and the cabinet.

Love watching Prime Minister's Questions! Someone told me that Robin Williams, on a visit to London, referred to the House of Commons as "like Congress--but with a two-drink minimum." I am inclined to agree. They have it weekly on C-SPAN, believe it or not, and I used to LOVE watching it, especially back during Blair's premiership. Instead of "the distinguished Gentle[wo]man from Florida" or "the esteemed Senior Senator from South Carolina"; it's always "My right honourable friend" (Which translates roughly to "that @#$! sitting just across from me....") They did actually show the Canadian House of Commons one time when I was watching it, that was pretty interesting. In true Canadian fashion they act more polite than in UK's Question Time, but it's a facade of course. (One has to admit politics isn't exactly love thy neighbor....) C-SPAN is the dullest channel because to watch the "live" floor of the US House or Senate, is like watching paint dry. No one in Congress says "Me thinks the right honourable lady doth screech too much!"

Pity...

So anyway, is it possible guys that your Labour party, or even their constituents across the UK, have really taken a turn hard-left?

Ricky: right, that's what I've been told (about the P.C. of Canada, etc.) But how long (pages, etc) is your Constitution? I know it was originally called the British North America Act of 1867, and you received permission in 1982 to no longer have to ask permission to amend it.

(As an aside, the US Constitution, unamended, is like, 4 huge sheets of parchment with scrawly writing on it, consisting of only 7 Articles, the longest being Article 1 [the Congress]....in our state it's 108 pp. I once remarked to a friend that in my opinion, the Declaration of Rights is the SECOND most important part of the Constitution, not the most important. When asked to clarify what I thought was the most useful part, my reply was "the index." Quite insane. Even with all 27 amendments at the end the US constitution is nowhere near that long.)

At any rate, out of curiosity, has the Labour Party taken, in entirety, an Anti-American hard-left stance now? Or is this mostly for show? are Britons to the left really THAT far left?

Some are, and Corbyn is one of them. His predecessor Ed Miliband was very pro-American (he even loves baseball !). Corbyn comes out of a philosophical tradition of anti-imperialism which views British and especially American imperialism as the root of all evil. It colours his position on every aspect of foreign policy, explaining why he's consistently taken the side of Hamas, the IRA, Venezuela, Argentina, and so on ad infinitum. Pick any global trouble spot and you guarantee that Corbyn will be there supporting whoever takes the most anti-Western line. The rest of the Labour party isn't really like that, or certainly the Parliamentary party anyway. A lot of the new supporters who propelled him to the leadership hold similar views, but I think most of them support him more for what he's not than what he is (ie, he's not Tony Blair).

So what does it really mean to be "Labour" anymore? Or a "Tory"?

I could turn that question right around at you and I suspect you'd have a hard time defining what it means to be a Republican or Democrat. Both of our nations have more or less binary political systems brought about by FPTP voting systems in which you have to be part of a broad church political alliance to stand any chance of getting into power. Labour is the traditional home of people with progressive views, but that encompasses all kinds of different people. At root it exists to serve the interests of the working class, while the Tories have traditionally been the party of the aspirational middle classes. Both parties have been undergoing a bit of an identity crisis in recent decades though. The traditional working class has been shrinking as absolute poverty has declined and heavy industry has been replaced by the service sector as the main source of employment. This has left the core Labour vote as benefits claimants, immigrants and public sector workers. Meanwhile, the middle classes have grown ever more liberal in their social attitudes, meaning that the middle class does not really consider itself to be conservative anymore and increasingly doesn't identify with the Conservative party.

Another question for the Word file, and I hope I haven't asked this before: what is the difference between, and precise specification of:

"the government" (I guess the British Government)
"the Ministry"
"the Cabinet"
"H.M. Government"

I think you can guess the answer to those questions.

The government and HM government are one and the same thing (oddly enough, both of them refer to the government). The ministry refers to specific departments. Cabinet, as I'm sure we've discussed before, is a committee comprising the senior ministers of state plus various others like the chief whip.

So the "ministry" cannot refer to the whole executive branch, then?

Like "The Obama Administration" means the cabinet and executive officers of the American Government? I saw on a website "the Callaghan Ministry" (so I thought that was roughly analogous, then, since the office of the Prime Minister itself I have seen referred to as the "premiership", I suppose.)

And when I asked about "the government" or "her majesty's Government", yes, I knew that was the same thing, but I am asking, does HM Government refer to just the senior ministers (if I remember, you told me they're typically styled "Secretary of State for [department]"), including the PM? or can the term Her Majesty's Government refer to ALL the holders of executive offices--secretaries of state, junior ministers, and PPS's--who are members of the majority party in the Commons? Sorry, I wasn't specific enough when I asked that...

the middle class does not really consider itself to be conservative anymore and increasingly doesn't identify with the Conservative party.

I understand. A professor once told me that in the UK, "conservative" is a party, in the US, it's a movement. (Which is why I wondered about that.)

It sounds like you're describing something that's somewhat similar to the US; whatever Democrat or Republican means is defined by the politics of the current day rather than by the past. Many issues the parties once stood for or against in this country are, obviously, long-since dead. We obviously cannot say that the GOP is the party against Slavery, since that has long-since been abolished. Nor can we still say the Democratic Party is the party of free silver: with fiat money, that's as dead as slavery. I guess one could say our Democratic Party is the party more in favor of a welfare state, but then again, that's more recent (e.g., the New Deal of the 1930s, still a long time ago, but still closer to us than the 1860s), and the GOP is more in favor of economic conservatism: more free-market economics, less powerful welfare state, etc. I think the "pro union" or "anti-union" aspect of the two parties is partly cooked up by union leaders. I have heard a few proud union men say it confuses them how the unions are always pro-Democratic, even if they're doing something against the interests of their union or unions in general. So the labels aren't very clear here, either.

You once said that a lot of trade unionists aren't all that socially progressive, just economically (you didn't put it like that but I took away from it that that's what you meant).

Like "The Obama Administration" means the cabinet and executive officers of the American Government? I saw on a website "the Callaghan Ministry" (so I thought that was roughly analogous, then, since the office of the Prime Minister itself I have seen referred to as the "premiership", I suppose.)

Without having seen the context it's difficult to comment on the 'Callaghan ministry' thing, but it could have referred either to the ministry during the time of the Callaghan government or to an earlier time when Callaghan was the Secretary of State for a particular ministry. Either way, 'ministry' always refers to a specific department of state rather than the government as a whole.

or can the term Her Majesty's Government refer to ALL the holders of executive offices--secretaries of state, junior ministers, and PPS's--who are members of the majority party in the Commons?

Yes, this is what it refers to.

You once said that a lot of trade unionists aren't all that socially progressive, just economically (you didn't put it like that but I took away from it that that's what you meant).

I don't remember what I said, but that's a pretty fair description of reality. Trade unionists tend to be authentically working class, which distinguishes them from the leadership elites of most left-wing parties that notionally exist to serve their interests. You won't find many more socially conservative people than the old-school working classes. The Labour party (and I assume the Democrats and other progressive parties) is a loose coalition between working class trade union types who care mostly about the economic interests of their members and middle-class intellectual types who are motivated by their social agenda. The latter have tended to dominate the leadership and control the media, but the former are far more numerous.

Sassenach wrote:

Like "The Obama Administration" means the cabinet and executive officers of the American Government? I saw on a website "the Callaghan Ministry" (so I thought that was roughly analogous, then, since the office of the Prime Minister itself I have seen referred to as the "premiership", I suppose.)

Without having seen the context it's difficult to comment on the 'Callaghan ministry' thing, but it could have referred either to the ministry during the time of the Callaghan government or to an earlier time when Callaghan was the Secretary of State for a particular ministry. Either way, 'ministry' always refers to a specific department of state rather than the government as a whole.

On Wikipedia, and in other contexts, there is the use of the term "ministry" to refer to a Prime Minister's term of office, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... overnments

In which case yes, it does actually serve as a synonym for the government under that PM. I guess this comes from the fact that the Prime Minster is themselves a "Minister" (and before they were called PM, they were the "First Lord of the Treasury". )

So it is a bit confusing. A simple(ish?) guide:

HM Government = the government
The [PM's name, possibly numbered for multiple/non-consecutive terms] Ministry = the government of that PM at the time
Premier = Prime Minister (the PM is the now official title in the UK, "Premier" is our generic term for a head of government in any )

You once said that a lot of trade unionists aren't all that socially progressive, just economically (you didn't put it like that but I took away from it that that's what you meant).

I don't remember what I said, but that's a pretty fair description of reality. Trade unionists tend to be authentically working class, which distinguishes them from the leadership elites of most left-wing parties that notionally exist to serve their interests. You won't find many more socially conservative people than the old-school working classes. The Labour party (and I assume the Democrats and other progressive parties) is a loose coalition between working class trade union types who care mostly about the economic interests of their members and middle-class intellectual types who are motivated by their social agenda. The latter have tended to dominate the leadership and control the media, but the former are far more numerous.

I think that is somewhat simplistic and relies a little on generalised stereotypes. I have known working class trade unionists who are also very socially progressive, and middle class non-unionists who are socially conservative. And within the Labour Party, too.

After all, I was brought up in a council house, from a working class family and mainly with friends from the same background. I went to a normal comprehensive school, but for sixth form I went over to the next town, which was far more middle class.

Let's put it this way: It's not that I never saw racism or prejudice among my peers, but it was not until I went to a middle class school that I saw people openly expressing support for the BNP.

For Hacker, the British Nationalist Party were the inheritors of our small but occasionally virulent fascist tradition, going back to the Mosleyites who supported Hitler and bashed Jews in the 30s, and on to "Britain First" and the EDL of today. Now, they also purport to be for the (white, British/English) working classes, but it's striking how many of the leadership of those organisations are also actually from a privileged background.

Also, the earlier comment:

Sassenach wrote:This has left the core Labour vote as benefits claimants, immigrants and public sector workers.

Again, let's see the evidence on that, rather than the stereotype?

For one thing, many immigrants cannot vote in UK general elections, and many people in the "underclass" do not vote. I don't dispute the public sector vote thing, but a lot of professionals like doctors and teachers I know have voted Tory recently. Probably regretting it bitterly now, though.

On Wikipedia, and in other contexts, there is the use of the term "ministry" to refer to a Prime Minister's term of office, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... overnments

Really ? That's news to me. It's not something I've come across before. I've seen people talk about the 'premiership' of a particular PM, but never the 'ministry'. *Shrug*, it matters not I suppose.

I think that is somewhat simplistic and relies a little on generalised stereotypes. I have known working class trade unionists who are also very socially progressive, and middle class non-unionists who are socially conservative. And within the Labour Party, too.

After all, I was brought up in a council house, from a working class family and mainly with friends from the same background. I went to a normal comprehensive school, but for sixth form I went over to the next town, which was far more middle class.

Let's put it this way: It's not that I never saw racism or prejudice among my peers, but it was not until I went to a middle class school that I saw people openly expressing support for the BNP.

I come from a working class background too, and I live in a very working class city. In my experience the traditional trade union types tend to be much less socially progressive than middle-class lefties are.

For Hacker, the British Nationalist Party were the inheritors of our small but occasionally virulent fascist tradition, going back to the Mosleyites who supported Hitler and bashed Jews in the 30s, and on to "Britain First" and the EDL of today. Now, they also purport to be for the (white, British/English) working classes, but it's striking how many of the leadership of those organisations are also actually from a privileged background.

Mosley came from a privileged background and back then there were plenty of privileged people with fascist sympathies. That was a long time ago mind you. You'll not find many EDL members from privileged backgrounds these days, it's very much a working class organisation.

Of course, you'll not find many EDL members of any background. For all the endless fretting about the far right that goes on in Britain, the fact remains that membership is tiny and shrinking. I wasn't really referring to the very small minority of active racists when I said that the traditional working classes tend to be socially conservative. You seem to have drawn an inference which wasn't there.

Again, let's see the evidence on that, rather than the stereotype?

For one thing, many immigrants cannot vote in UK general elections, and many people in the "underclass" do not vote. I don't dispute the public sector vote thing, but a lot of professionals like doctors and teachers I know have voted Tory recently. Probably regretting it bitterly now, though.

What I was referring to was the decline in organised labour as a political force and the slow drift away from class identity as a significant factor in British society. I don't think you can really dispute the fact that those who self-identify as working class are no longer the majority, or the fact that those who do still self-identify as working class no longer instinctively view the Labour party as their natural political home. It's not unreasonable to say that the Labour core vote is as I described it. Other people do still vote Labour of course, but it's no longer the mass movement it once was. The same thing applies to the Tories in a different way. Both parties have been hollowed out and are struggling to define their purpose in the modern world.

I was referring to racism as one aspect of social conservatism which I noted.

There are others, of course. There is a stereotype of misogyny and intolerance towards homosexuals or other groups. Of course the loudest voices can set the stereotypes somewhat, and the stereotype can itself breed a view as to what is "acceptable" in certain circles.

I agree that the working class identity has been changed massively, and yes organised labour is a lot weaker than it was a few generations ago.

But we always had the "Working Class Tory" - who date back to the days of "One Nation" Toryism that pre-dates the existence of the Labour Party. And I daresay that a lot of them are the people who backed Thatcher solidly, but later switched to Blair and since 2005 drifted back towards Cameron.

Which brings me to recent events - the Tories are now finding resistence to tax credit cuts from these very kind of voters - the working people who supported them in 2015 (and perhaps 2010 as well) because they see themselves as hard working, but are also poor and so get tax credits.

Personally I think class identity and identification has reduced, but we still do have a working class (they are much less blue collar, more in the service and caring sectors and so white/pink collar). They have been pitted against the "benefit claimants, immigrants and public sector workers", thinking that they are not themselves the target of cuts.

Not that the Tories were not dissembling about what they would cut from the "welfare" budget before the election. They have wisely not hit pensioners much, as they vote in droves, but suggested that tax credits would be protected.

Of course, if you are going to break election promises, best to do it early and hope people forget in four years' time.