nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

EdgeCase

My view of it is that both major parties have lost the plot entirely. There's a dysfunctional government and an equally dysfunctional opposition.

BonnieSituation

flatty wrote: »

In fairness, I have a pal who moves in those circles. I wondered how tb managed to pull the wool over the eyes of so many people. His take was that, by and large, Labour Party members are decent people who just didn't see tb, who in my pal's mind is a genuine psychopath, coming.

You have to remember that Labour had a rather wonderful leader in John Smith whose death enabled Blair to swoop in and pivot the party while the grieving process was still ongoing.

Like, the Tallaght Strategy, and WWI's effect on the passage of the home rule bill we'll never know how much things might have been better under Smith.

In fact I believe the decimation of Major's Cons in 97, which would only have happened under New Labour due to it "centring" enabled the so-called as JM called them, "bast@rds" that hounded him like Redwood, to stick around and give us the last decade.

A "normal" victory by a leftist Smith Labour in 97 would have kept the Tories slightly more sane; a what might have been indeed.

joeysoap

Larbre34 wrote: »

But one of them had half a clue and senior cabinet experience.

Like it or not, thats needed, as we have seen with Corbyn and the Cuckoo's Nest shadow cabinet. I mean watching Diane Abbott in action the last few days actually made me thankful for Mary Lou McDonald and thats twilight zone stuff for me.

Diane Abbott was awful on QT last night. You definitely wouldn’t want her as Home Secretary.

Larbre34

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Both Millibands are Oxford/Harvard/MIT Blairite rich boys pretending to care about the working classes.

But one of them had half a clue and senior cabinet experience.

Like it or not, thats needed, as we have seen with Corbyn and the Cuckoo's Nest shadow cabinet. I mean watching Diane Abbott in action the last few days actually made me thankful for Mary Lou McDonald and thats twilight zone stuff for me.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

Absolutely this. I have no love for David, but he was a damn sight better than Ed. Ed is an odious, snivelling creature. I can't believe that he was chosen after stabbing his brother in the back. You can get away with anything over there it seems.

Both Millibands are Oxford/Harvard/MIT Blairite rich boys pretending to care about the working classes.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There were behind the wrong Miliband.

Absolutely this. I have no love for David, but he was a damn sight better than Ed. Ed is an odious, snivelling creature. I can't believe that he was chosen after stabbing his brother in the back. You can get away with anything over there it seems.

flatty

Important to emphasise again that QT audience are a slightly upmarket version of the Jeremy Kyle show.

joeysoap

Watched two programmers on BBC last night. First one was the 5 candidates in the west Tyrone by election. THB , bar one they were poor , none so than the SF candidate who will probably skate home. When the UUP candidate was asked about leaving the CU etc he said his preferred option was a ‘comprehensive’ trade deal between the ROI and Uk. You couldn’t make it up. And none of the others picked up on it.

Second was QT, and Brexit was limited to the last 10 minutes. And for the first time I can recall, members of the audience brought up NI. 2 or 3 of them said that nobody mentioned Northern Ireland in the referendum, or leaving the CU. Typically when the Green Party lady said there should be a vote after the negotiations she was loudly booed.

Larbre34

Wages are outstripping inflation, which itself is unsustainably high and now the Bank of England is unlikely to be able to raise interest rates to tackle it, as flagged, because of these GDP issues.

And of course the Remain side will be accused of continuing Project Fear if they run with this, while the Brexit shills dont really care about fundamentals so long as their own brand of zionism isnt derailed

They really are fecked.

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

Corbyn doesn't even need to go tbh. He needs a more pragmatic and business centred shadow chancellor. Its mcdonald who puts the fear of God into most business people.

I dunno. Corbyn's political beliefs and his demeanour simply don't attract anywhere near enough voters. Personally, I do think he needs to go and a more charismatic, pragmatic and centrist politician needs to lead Labour into the next election. Otherwise, the incompetent and fantasist Tory party will get in yet again.

Charles Babbage

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK economic growth slows to just 0.1% in Q1.

Eeeek

Ireland grows by 0.1% each week.

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

Or actually winning enough votes to actually govern. You have to win first before you can govern, and it seems to me that a lot of the Labour backbenchers who are so opposed to Corbyn likes being in opposition. They were all behind Milliband and see how that turned out for the party.

There were behind the wrong Miliband. Despite May's ineptitude and the incessant and vicious civil war within the Tory party, Labour continues to fail in overtaking the Tories in the polls. Corbyn's popularity with voters has sunk further and is now 12% behind May.

Sure, some of Corbyn's policies are fundamentally sound but others are pure fantasy. Doesn't matter whether you're for or against Corbyn, he's not what the voters want. A more centrist leader would have made the Labour party more electable. Because Labour is not maximising its opportunity, it will be more likely that Britain will have yet another Tory government by default.

Corbyn doesn't even need to go tbh. He needs a more pragmatic and business centred shadow chancellor. Its mcdonald who puts the fear of God into most business people.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Tory party is just astonishingly badly led, deeply divided, utterly dysfunctional and its handling of Brexit, the biggest issue facing the UK for generation, for the past four years has been a shambolic parade of ineptitude, incompetence, misjudgment, dishonesty and folly.

...but apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

:pac::pac::pac:

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But I don't need to take either a Corbynite or an anti-Corbynite position myself to observe that a Corbynite leader of an anti-Corbynite parliamentary party is, um, going to find it difficult to be an effective leader.

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

In fairness, I have a pal who moves in those circles. I wondered how tb managed to pull the wool over the eyes of so many people. His take was that, by and large, Labour Party members are decent people who just didn't see tb, who in my pal's mind is a genuine psychopath, coming.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Or actually winning enough votes to actually govern. You have to win first before you can govern, and it seems to me that a lot of the Labour backbenchers who are so opposed to Corbyn likes being in opposition. They were all behind Milliband and see how that turned out for the party.

There were behind the wrong Miliband. Despite May's ineptitude and the incessant and vicious civil war within the Tory party, Labour continues to fail in overtaking the Tories in the polls. Corbyn's popularity with voters has sunk further and is now 12% behind May.

Sure, some of Corbyn's policies are fundamentally sound but others are pure fantasy. Doesn't matter whether you're for or against Corbyn, he's not what the voters want. A more centrist leader would have made the Labour party more electable. Because Labour is not maximising its opportunity, it will be more likely that Britain will have yet another Tory government by default.

Kermit.de.frog

Hard to stand over that growth. In fact per capita it seems highly probable the UK is in fact in recession.

trellheim

UK economic growth slows to just 0.1% in Q1.

For every economic indicator saying Brexit is stupid another one showing something different will be trotted out.

It is reasonably true to say there are a cohort ( in both Con and Labour ) who believes nothing matters other than crashing out March 2019 - the important part is the deed , the fact of a deal or not is actually far less of a point ("it can always be fixed afterwards", is the mindset, "sure they'll need us")

Why do they do this ? because every time they push hard at the Government, it moves along with them ( see Amber Rudd etc this week )

From the Leave side all they have to do is hang on and concede nothing

Kermit.de.frog

UK economic growth slows to just 0.1% in Q1.

Eeeek

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Presumably, if the leader was selected by the Parliament party, rather than by the rank-and-file, they would have a Blairite leader. Or, at any rate, a somewhat more Blairite leader than Corbyn, if not full-throttle Blairite. (Not everybody who opposes Corbyn would be an enthusiast for Blair.)

The other alternative, of course, would be to have a more Corbynite parliamentary party, which could be achieved by nominating more Corbynite candidates. But of course that would involve a horrible degree of bloodletting, with sitting MPs being deselected.

The third alternative is for Corbyn to develop a leadership style under which he can convincingly present himself as someone who can provide effective leadership to a broad-church party. Easier said than done, I grant you, but it looks to me like the only way forward.

At the moment, it seems to me, Labour have the worst of both worlds. The Tory party is just astonishingly badly led, deeply divided, utterly dysfunctional and its handling of Brexit, the biggest issue facing the UK for generation, for the past four years has been a shambolic parade of ineptitude, incompetence, misjudgment, dishonesty and folly. And yet Labour couldn't beat them at least year's election. So, while the country isn't yet suffering directly from ineffectively leadership in the Labour party, because Labour isn't in power, I suggest the Labour party itself certainly is, if only because they couldn't win an election when up against what must be the most dismal incarnation ever of the Tory party.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Or actually winning enough votes to actually govern. You have to win first before you can govern, and it seems to me that a lot of the Labour backbenchers who are so opposed to Corbyn likes being in opposition. They were all behind Milliband and see how that turned out for the party.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But I don't need to take either a Corbynite or an anti-Corbynite position myself to observe that a Corbynite leader of an anti-Corbynite parliamentary party is, um, going to find it difficult to be an effective leader.

The alternative is to appoint a Blairite as leader. They might be very effective at leading the Parliamentary party and even at governing the country just as Blair was, but utterly ineffective at implementing Labours policies and ideals such as not killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In Labour's case, the problem is not that Corbyn is unsuited to lead the Labour party, it is that many of Labour's MPs don't represent the Labour Party of today, they represent Blair's "New Labour" bash unions/invade Iraq/deport immigrants Tory Lite party.

Sure. But I don't need to take either a Corbynite or an anti-Corbynite position myself to observe that a Corbynite leader of an anti-Corbynite parliamentary party is, um, going to find it difficult to be an effective leader. What I'm suggesting is that the recently-adopted models for selecting leaders in both Labour and Tory parties is not well-suited to the requirements of the British constitution, and the role parties play in it, and British politics is suffering as a result.

I'm offering this as (part of) a reason why British politics is so extraordinarily dysfunctional at the moment. And I say this as - cards on the table! - someone who would in many respects be quite attracted to Corbyn, and to Corbynite positions (though not with respect to Brexit).

And I have a quibble when you say that "MPs don't represent the Labour Party of the day". MPs aren't supposed to represent the Labour party; the MPs are the Labour party, at least so far as Parliament is concerned. They may not represent the rank-and-file membership of the party branches but, then, they are not supposed to. In so far as MPs are representatives, they are not repfresentatives of either the local or the national party; they are representatives of the voters.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

So the selection mechanism is not well-adapted to choosing a leader who is fitted to the role.

In Labour's case, the problem is not that Corbyn is unsuited to lead the Labour party, it is that many of Labour's MPs don't represent the Labour Party of today, they represent Blair's "New Labour" bash unions/invade Iraq/deport immigrants Tory Lite party.

Lemming

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

Whilst I am not surprised, as has been pointed out, no one person (or bookies) chooses the party leader. That's put to an internal vote. But in any case, I'm not so sure that JRM is a front-runner for credible candidate. Also look at it this way: why would he want to put himself in the hot-seat when he's able to manipulate it from the backbenches with little risk or comeback on himself? He's got the best of both worlds right now; a media that laps him up because he's such a divisive and odious figure a la Farage, a PM who is in fear of him & his ERG lot, the ability to say whatever he likes and not really get challenged on it because he's on the back-benches not front-row, and all the same he's able to steer the front-row just by act of f@rting, never mind anything else. Being on the backbenches allows him to be absolutely single-minded & uncompromising. As soon as he sits in the leaders chair things get significantly less straight-forward.

Larbre34

I hope it happens, it'll trigger the departure of moderate tories and the creation of the new centrist party in the UK.

What will be left behind, a backward looking relic of times long disappeared, headed by a the bunch of cosseted twits, JRM, Redwood, Michael Fabricant, Gove, Johnson, Penny Mordaunt, IDS et al. Anyone who votes for them gets what they deserve.

Ive always been convinced May is a Trojan horse, her objective to march Brexit up to the top of the mountain and expose its realities from the inside. This strategy will result in her destruction but i didnt expect it for another 6 months. She is perhaps being overtaken by the uncharacteristic speed of the EU in shutting down every avenue taken by her Govt in their 'cake and eat it approach.

Peregrinus

The essential problem is that while the Tory parliamentary party can ditch the leader, they can't choose the new leader; that goes to a ballot of party members.

A majority of the parliamentary party are Remainers and would favour a much softer Brexit than the one May has chosen to pursue, but (it's thought that) a majority of the rank-and-file membership lean towards Leave. Thus remainers are slow to ditch May, despite everything about her, for fear of getting, well, JRM or the like. The result is that May remains in post, despite almost certainly not enjoying the confidence of the parliamentary party, and despite pursuing policies which they believe not to be in the interests of country or party.

Curiously, Labour has a very similar problem, and for similar reasons; Corbyn does not enjoy the support of the parliamentary party and they could cause a leadership spill, but they won't because he does enjoy the confidence of the rank-and-file membership, and would win the ensuing leadership election.

Leaving aside the specific merits and demerits of Brexit, I think it's notable that right now the UK is suffering from a severe dearth of effective political leadership, and I wonder to what extent this is an outcome of the Catch-22 that both parties have walked themselves into. Essentially, they have adopted a presidential model of choosing a leader, but it's a parliamentary leadership role that they are seeking to fill. So the selection mechanism is not well-adapted to choosing a leader who is fitted to the role.

Zubeneschamali

You can see why May is still in place when these are the other options.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.

I'm shocked to see that this is the case. What a sorry state of affairs. The whole field is a shambles really.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white".

wtf

How do we pass this snippet to those Brexit voters ?

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

Earlier during the week he was crowing on about how it would be 'racist' to grant EU nationals rights above non-EU citizens post-brexit because they [EU] are "predominantly white". He couldn't give less of a flying fvck; it's a simple case of "any rock will do" with which to try and bash the other guy with.

Don't forget that he is also informed by his stake in Somerset capital standing to earn a slice of the estimated £5bn+ from the vulture fall-out if Brexit proceeds. How he can be allowed to sit in parliament with such a clear conflict of issues is beyond parody ...

Here's a tough one: Who is the bookies' favourite to be the next British Prime Minister? Hint: His first name is Jacob.