UK information
May 9th, 2015, 12:19 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK information
I live in the USA and have been reading and learning so much from many of you with knowledge about all things UK. Now, hopefully, I can ask a non-travel question, for just a second, please.
I am interested in the UK election and would love to find a site, for political, non-travel related UK matters.
Anyone know of a link to such a discussion group to learn more about politics, customs, etc of the UK? Thanks, and sorry about being off travel topic.
I am interested in the UK election and would love to find a site, for political, non-travel related UK matters.
Anyone know of a link to such a discussion group to learn more about politics, customs, etc of the UK? Thanks, and sorry about being off travel topic.
May 9th, 2015, 12:38 PM
#2
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British newspapers are a good source of information, and many of them are free to access. Here are a few, ranging from left-wing to right-wing in political views:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.theguardian.com/uk
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
May 9th, 2015, 12:42 PM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And since you started the thread let's see what Fodorites, especially BritFodorites, think about the election though most Fodorites here seem to be weel-heeled folks likely to tilt Tory.
the results SUCK that's all you need to know LOL - Scottish Nationalists doomed Labour - not because of the loss of 40 or so previously steadfast Labour seats but in the rest of the country too - well England mainly who deared a Labour-SNP coalition tilting things even more to Scotland than Cameron did shameless in the recent independence vote.
the results SUCK that's all you need to know LOL - Scottish Nationalists doomed Labour - not because of the loss of 40 or so previously steadfast Labour seats but in the rest of the country too - well England mainly who deared a Labour-SNP coalition tilting things even more to Scotland than Cameron did shameless in the recent independence vote.
May 9th, 2015, 12:49 PM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Beeb has some good stuff about the election at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015
May 9th, 2015, 01:46 PM
#9
The New York Times has some coverage. I was watching the BBC (courtesy of my VPN) and nearly threw up when they announced the exit poll. Has Ashcroft eaten his hat yet? (No, I haven't forgiven Clegg.)
May 9th, 2015, 01:51 PM
#10
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL Thursday. Me too! I stayed watching until 6am UK time. It got worse and worse. What a rout. Heads have rolled in all directions. And now **** Cameron is announcing his new cabinet to add insult to injury.
May 9th, 2015, 02:30 PM
#11
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubt if David Miliband could have avoided the rout in Scotland - the SNP went from 6 to 56 seats with an average of a 3.1% swing to them. Besides think of the confusion when people talked about "Dave" - did they mean Cameron or Miliband
In England Labour INCREASED their share of the vote by 3.6% gaining 15 seats whilst the Tory vote rose 1.4% gaining them 21 seats.
The main reason for seat changes in England was due to the collapse of the Lib Dem vote which allowed the 2nd placed party from 2010 to take the Lib Dem seats - which favoured the Tories as they were 2nd in most Lib Dem seats. There was very little Labour to Tory shifts and where they occurred there was a corresponding Tory to Labour shift elsewhere
In England Labour INCREASED their share of the vote by 3.6% gaining 15 seats whilst the Tory vote rose 1.4% gaining them 21 seats.
The main reason for seat changes in England was due to the collapse of the Lib Dem vote which allowed the 2nd placed party from 2010 to take the Lib Dem seats - which favoured the Tories as they were 2nd in most Lib Dem seats. There was very little Labour to Tory shifts and where they occurred there was a corresponding Tory to Labour shift elsewhere
May 9th, 2015, 03:11 PM
#12
Surely the swing to the SNP was more than that. I kept seeing swings in the teens and twenties as the results came in. And the BBC says the largest in the country was "...39.3% from Labour - in Glasgow North East" - which is just a-mazing.
May 9th, 2015, 09:32 PM
#13
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>" most Fodorites here seem to be weel-heeled folks likely to tilt Tory."</i>
If you bothered reading what people actually write, you'd see that out of a dozen or so regular British contributors, only one gives any hint at all of being likely to tilt Tory - and I suspect he doesn't vote that way consistently. One or two avoid any comments on politics.
Several of us commit the ultimate crime (in left-leaning fascists' eyes) of pointing out the huge achievements of Mrs Thatcher. What really rails American ignorami like the Deluded of Detroit is that we then go round voters' doorsteps and listen to what they say.
<i>the results SUCK that's all you need to know </i>
No sentence could sum up better the contempt for democracy held by all American pseudo-liberals.
<i>"would love to find a site, for political, non-travel related UK matters."</i>
Start at the BBC.
The extraordinary partisan bias of the mainstream print media (the highly illiberal, but left-leaning, Guardian and Independent are just as bad as the Telegraph) is then shocking. As well as the three Heimdall suggests, The Times is almost entirely paywall-protected, but the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/home/uk) allows limited free access and is by far the most objective of the print media on the web.
The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/) is widely dismissed by pseudo-liberals, and is often appalling. It has a remarkable history of campaigning for unpopular causes that pseudo-liberals constantly try to discredit. The Sun - commercially, the most successful print newspaper on earth - is thought by the politically illiterate to manipulate public opinion Rupert Murdoch's way.
In fact, being in business to make money, Murdoch consistently makes his paper back the party that's going to win. This year, the Sun's Scottish site (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/) backed the Scottish Nats: the Sun's English one ( http://www.thesun.co.uk/) backed the Tories. In the four national elections this century, the Sun has backed Labour twice in England and backed the Tories twice: a simple fact that Murdoch-haters are in denial of.
However, since Murdoch is in business to make money, The Sun, like The Times, is accessible only within a paywall.
For a terrific take on the drivel pseudo-liberals are churning out about current British politics: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...feat-watch-out
The underlying website is the classic main left-leaning weekly magazine: but its purpose is to analyse politics and not just help the committed loathe their opponents. Its right-leaning equivalent (http://www.spectator.co.uk/) is more prone to narcissism and opponent-baiting nastiness: like many political sites, it can be even viler about those on its own side it disagrees with than about its ideological opponents. My fading memory, though, is that it wasn't as horrible when we last had a Tory government with a string majority (quarter of a century ago), so it might now get back to commenting sensibly on politics.
The Economist (http://www.economist.com/) has a limited paywall, and is perpetually reducing its UK coverage. But it remains the most authoritative commercial medium commenting on UK affairs.
If you bothered reading what people actually write, you'd see that out of a dozen or so regular British contributors, only one gives any hint at all of being likely to tilt Tory - and I suspect he doesn't vote that way consistently. One or two avoid any comments on politics.
Several of us commit the ultimate crime (in left-leaning fascists' eyes) of pointing out the huge achievements of Mrs Thatcher. What really rails American ignorami like the Deluded of Detroit is that we then go round voters' doorsteps and listen to what they say.
<i>the results SUCK that's all you need to know </i>
No sentence could sum up better the contempt for democracy held by all American pseudo-liberals.
<i>"would love to find a site, for political, non-travel related UK matters."</i>
Start at the BBC.
The extraordinary partisan bias of the mainstream print media (the highly illiberal, but left-leaning, Guardian and Independent are just as bad as the Telegraph) is then shocking. As well as the three Heimdall suggests, The Times is almost entirely paywall-protected, but the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/home/uk) allows limited free access and is by far the most objective of the print media on the web.
The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/) is widely dismissed by pseudo-liberals, and is often appalling. It has a remarkable history of campaigning for unpopular causes that pseudo-liberals constantly try to discredit. The Sun - commercially, the most successful print newspaper on earth - is thought by the politically illiterate to manipulate public opinion Rupert Murdoch's way.
In fact, being in business to make money, Murdoch consistently makes his paper back the party that's going to win. This year, the Sun's Scottish site (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/) backed the Scottish Nats: the Sun's English one ( http://www.thesun.co.uk/) backed the Tories. In the four national elections this century, the Sun has backed Labour twice in England and backed the Tories twice: a simple fact that Murdoch-haters are in denial of.
However, since Murdoch is in business to make money, The Sun, like The Times, is accessible only within a paywall.
For a terrific take on the drivel pseudo-liberals are churning out about current British politics: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...feat-watch-out
The underlying website is the classic main left-leaning weekly magazine: but its purpose is to analyse politics and not just help the committed loathe their opponents. Its right-leaning equivalent (http://www.spectator.co.uk/) is more prone to narcissism and opponent-baiting nastiness: like many political sites, it can be even viler about those on its own side it disagrees with than about its ideological opponents. My fading memory, though, is that it wasn't as horrible when we last had a Tory government with a string majority (quarter of a century ago), so it might now get back to commenting sensibly on politics.
The Economist (http://www.economist.com/) has a limited paywall, and is perpetually reducing its UK coverage. But it remains the most authoritative commercial medium commenting on UK affairs.
May 10th, 2015, 12:23 AM
#15
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a couple of threads about the UK election in the Lounge, but since the Lounge is closed to new members they are inaccessible to many, which results in such questions being posted here.
I am glad UKIP failed to get more MPs, though disturbed by the percentage of votes they got.
As a Brit in Europe I shall be following the EU debate with interest. I, and thousands like me, could be up a creek without a paddle in a couple of years.
I am glad UKIP failed to get more MPs, though disturbed by the percentage of votes they got.
As a Brit in Europe I shall be following the EU debate with interest. I, and thousands like me, could be up a creek without a paddle in a couple of years.
May 10th, 2015, 12:39 AM
#16
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am glad UKIP failed to get more MPs, though disturbed by the percentage of votes they got."
A lot of British people are fed up with Brussels and that was no doubt echoed in that percentage. Don't forget that we voted on joining the EEC (common market) in 1975, not the federal Europe that it has become and on that point of the 1975 referendum, it emerged in letters released after Ted Heath died that he wanted into Europe "at any cost", nobody could convince me that the referendum wasn't rigged.
A lot of British people are fed up with Brussels and that was no doubt echoed in that percentage. Don't forget that we voted on joining the EEC (common market) in 1975, not the federal Europe that it has become and on that point of the 1975 referendum, it emerged in letters released after Ted Heath died that he wanted into Europe "at any cost", nobody could convince me that the referendum wasn't rigged.
May 10th, 2015, 01:04 AM
#17
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooameye, I am not going to enter a debate on the EU here, but I think that the great British Public is badly informed on many of the good things that come from the UK's EU membership.
I sincerely hope that the run up to the referendum is fair, and that the pros are as well advertised as the cons.
You can for a start think on farming subsidies, infra structure subsidies, mobile phone roaming charges, airline delay compensation, free health care when visiting an EU country, the fact that many companies are only based in the UK because of the EU membership. No doubt Ireland will be more than happy to accommodate those.
Plus many far more complicated benefits which most people never hear of or consider.
I sincerely hope that the run up to the referendum is fair, and that the pros are as well advertised as the cons.
You can for a start think on farming subsidies, infra structure subsidies, mobile phone roaming charges, airline delay compensation, free health care when visiting an EU country, the fact that many companies are only based in the UK because of the EU membership. No doubt Ireland will be more than happy to accommodate those.
Plus many far more complicated benefits which most people never hear of or consider.
May 10th, 2015, 01:20 AM
#18
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The extraordinary partisan bias of the mainstream print media (the highly illiberal, but left-leaning, Guardian and Independent are just as bad as the Telegraph) is then shocking"
Actually, this time around the Independent endorsed the Conservatives (cautiously, but definitely). I find the Independent usually offers a ranger of commentators from left to right.
Actually, this time around the Independent endorsed the Conservatives (cautiously, but definitely). I find the Independent usually offers a ranger of commentators from left to right.
