Joe_ Public wrote: » No fan of Amber Rudd, windrush just for one, but way they are treating her speaks volumes. Give her the whip back and let her go out with dignity, but no, they wont do that. A warning to others, i suppose. The "nasty" party eating its own.
Shelga wrote: » “You could argue”- meaning you could take wild guesses at what 60% of the electorate actually want. If you want an answer to a specific question, a referendum is the only way to do it. Yes, it would be divisive and toxic, but it’s the only way to ask the electorate to specify what they want done with Brexit.
Varta wrote: » Know your audience and target your audience and ideally have several audiences, all of whom know little about the other audiences. That is how the clever tacticians will try to manipulate this election.
Varta wrote: » And the the members of the Labour party give each other chocolates and flowers each day.
Varta wrote: » For example, she is happy to use threatening and abusive language to others but cries foul when it comes her way. She once threatened to knife Corbyn... or maybe that was just a metaphor. Except it wouldn't have been seen as a metaphor if it had been said about her. If there's one thing that getting older has taught me, it's not to be blinded by ideology or loyalty and to apply the same critique to all sides.
Rjd2 wrote: » This thread looks like its going to be Tory bashing and Labour loving non stop for the next six weeks. :P Rudd's relationship with Boris is very complicated, they have been pally for last few years while also tearing each other apart, Rudd especially has hit him with a few low blows. Rudd despite been a remainer was paid of numerous times to do May's dirty work regarding Brexit and then stuck the knife in Boris last minute.
schmittel wrote: » I agree that a second referendum is logical proposition, but plenty of people don't including most importantly the majority of democratically elected MPs in the current parliament. So there is no point going on about a solution that is not currently only the table. What is currently on the table is a general election. And I really fail to see how if (assuming they stick to their manifesto commitments) any party gets a majority in the House of Commons somehow this outcome can be described as undemocratic. In this scenario, are you suggesting that it would be undemocratic because the results implies 60% of the electorate favour Brexit? I really don't understand why you (and so many others) think it would be undemocratic. Can you explain why?
schmittel wrote: » In this scenario, are you suggesting that it would be undemocratic because the results implies 60% of the electorate favour Brexit? I really don't understand why you (and so many others) think it would be undemocratic. Can you explain why?
Shelga wrote: » If you want an answer on Brexit, ask about only Brexit. Simples.
CelticRambler wrote: » Yep - but don't assume that the clever tacticians are all/only on the Tory/BP/Leave side. Remember Cummings is supposed to be one of them and look at the mess he created. That is why I think any predictions this far out are pointless and likely to be way off the mark - it'll take a few weeks at least for the different parties to refine their strategies, attempt to read the minds of the other parties and appropriately target the right audiences In today's unstable landscape, if they mess things up along the way (get the timing wrong, misjudge the audience's appetite for a particular policy position, overlook some tangential issue that suddently takes centre stage, have candidate that looks sideways at the wrong blogger ... ) that could spiral out of control. Even though I don't believe there's a snowball's chance of the Lib Dems achieving a majority, the notion that every GE is effectively Tory vs Labour (in England, obviously) is well and truly dead and buried now. Leave vs Remain sealed its fate, and the by-elections have shown that people will abandon their old allegiances if there's a reasonable alternative. Unless there are pacts to avoid it, I think we'll see an awful lot of four-way contests that are "too close to call" on the night. It should make for a great Christmas Special ! :cool:
Zubeneschamali wrote: » That isn't how democracy works in the UK - Parliament is sovereign, referendums are not binding. So the result of a General Election is well defined, and the result of a Referendum is an unholy mess.
Joe_ Public wrote: » As far as i know jeremy corbyn didnt respond to division in his party by threatening mps with losing the whip and expelling them from the party. Lots of people think he should.
Shelga wrote: » Not when you have a specific piece of legislation in front of you, and you want to know if the public want to enact it, or to remain in the EU.
Tell me how wrote: » Don't think the Labour party could be used as an example of unity given the anti-semetism conversation and also kicking out someone who although not an MP, was and is a significant voice on UK politics, Alistair Campbell.
schmittel wrote: » Sure. That worked out well last time.
Shelga wrote: » If it passed this time, it would legitimise Brexit and shut Remainers up for once and for all.
quokula wrote: » There was a referendum. Leave won. 48% voted remain. If an even smaller number than 48% vote for the Lib Dems, how does that override the referendum? All it would prove is that a subset of the existing remain voters managed to vote tactically.
quokula wrote: » I totally believe Brexit is a bad idea, but reversing it without a mandate that equals the original referendum would be an even worse idea and would open a can of worms that could do far more damage to the UK in the long run.
Varta wrote: » I'm looking forward to what could and should be very creative media campaigns by all parties - particularly Labour and Tory. I think the hype around Lib/Dem is just that, hype. They appeal to a very small portion of the electorate and Swinson has all the bearing and composure of a student union candidate. But in terms of how the campaigns are run we could see a number of exciting new developments.
Podge_irl wrote: » What can of worms? Seriously, what would it actually impact? It could undermine the legitimacy of referendums but they are not an inherent part of the UK constitutional system anyway and frankly, appear to be handled quite poorly.
shatners bassoon wrote: » I'll preface this by saying a massive thank you to all who post in this thread. I've been lurking since its fifth or sixth iteration and it really has been invaluable. The vitriol towards the Labour stance does surprise me I have to say. I appreciate the difficulty in selling it to your average Joe on the street and the results may well reflect that but it's by far the most sensible option so far imo in that it makes an attempt to respect the referendum result while offering the public another opportunity to have a say. However much I would like to see the UK remain, the Libdem policy is profoundly undemocratic. The fact that it can be distilled into an easily digestible soundbite doesn't make it any more reasonable/admirable. I won't profess to know a great deal about Corbyn prior to the Brexit fiasco but to those who repeatedly call him out as useless and often, 'as bad as Boris', what could he have done differently that would change your opinion? That's a genuine question btw I have no allegiance to the guy.
Ihatewhahabies wrote: » My belief is that he / Labour party are trying to ensure that the blame for Brexit will be put on the Tories....Unsure if that is successful especially as i listen too much to the LBC and there is a preponderance of attempts to try and blame labour and specifcally Corbyn for the lack of progress in exiting the EU. They must believe we have no memories it was Teresa's red lines that complicated the issue ....perhaps on purpose. See how Boris's deal is not too far from May's...this is the max that they will be able to sell to the UK's public as an acceptable break from EU which is much worse than the deal they already have.
