|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 0:39:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 0:39:30 GMT
Each party elected to government will likely favour their own or more cynically have tried to have done enough to appeal to those swing voters who may be more right leaning labour voters or left/moderate tories. Also all those people who voted Lib Dem up to 2015 and the surge Farage got in that election are there to be won.
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 7:24:30 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 7:24:30 GMT
... I’m a Labour Remainer but - like May - recognise that the majority want to leave and as a believer in democracy accept the result... My problem is that I find it hard to accept that 51% is a majority in such a crucial, life changing, economy affecting vote. I guess it depends on perspective, n all that, but to me that glass below is not mostly full - nor mostly empty. The fluid is not filling the majority of the glass nor is the majority of the glass empty. And I contest the 'majority' argument furthermore when there is a stark evidence that the ~650,000 people who swung the vote were potentially subject to illegal propaganda from the Leave campaign, ultimately changing the voting decision of ~800,000 people.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Dec 11, 2018 8:19:54 GMT
... I’m a Labour Remainer but - like May - recognise that the majority want to leave and as a believer in democracy accept the result... My problem is that I find it hard to accept that 51% is a majority in such a crucial, life changing, economy affecting vote. Not only that, but it was 51% at a point several years ago where opinions were based largely on propaganda and very little understanding of what was actually involved, not least of all because several of the anti-EU tabloids were going out of their way to rely on sound bites rather than in-depth analysis. Opinions have changed since then, and many of the older voters who were firmly anti-EU have now died while younger people who have a more global perspective are now able to vote.
People keep on going on about respecting the democratic process, but can you imagine if general elections were run on the basis of each person getting exactly one vote in their life, and if they change their mind about how they cast it or if the situation changes then they just have to suck it up?
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 11, 2018 11:16:09 GMT
I join with those who find it hard to stomach talk of 'will of the people' and the sanctity of democracy. We know there was illegal activity and underhanded practices involved in the Leave campaign. Brexiters who in one breath berate Remainers for being undemocratic will later in the same breath tell us to shut up and accuse us of being "traitors" and not respecting democracy for questioning or challenging the process of leaving. We have a PM who didn't even want to respect our own parliamentary sovereignty and had to be forced to do so by legal action. We then had already toxic media sinking to new lows by branding independent judiciary as 'enemies of the people' for simply doing their job. The mindset of too many of those claiming to respect democracy was revealed by their death, rape and beheading threats to the woman bringing the legal action, as well as one person offering £5000 to anyone who ran her over. These people are among those who said part of their reason for voting leave was to "reclaim" our sovereignty, and this was their reaction to someone acting to ensure it was preserved.
As I mentioned above, millions of people who will be possibly the most directly and materially affected by the referendum result couldn't vote. Their being put into an extended limbo for over 2 years, during which they have had to worry and agonise over what will happen to them, their jobs, their families and homes, is for me possibly the most disgraceful aspect of an already elongated apoca-sh*tfest.
All the above, plus the rest of the river of political ordure we're currently riding, thanks the government holding to its ill-advised commitment to enact the narrowly-won result of a deeply flawed advisory referendum. And we mustn't question it, because democracy is apparently a completely one-off event that occurred in June 2016 and can never be revisited, reconsidered or re-evaluated, ever.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 11, 2018 11:20:18 GMT
There is so much talk about Brexit I find it hard to follow. My own view is how on Earth can we take the referendum result as red when nobody, not least the politicians let alone the general public, had any idea what they were voting for, in terms of the fallout and what would happen to the country, which even now everybody is guessing. Surely a deal and its terms laid out in clear English should have been negotiated well before any referendum on whether they were acceptable?
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 12:48:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 12:48:46 GMT
I honestly felt that the Remainers wheeled out all the possible Big Guns in the campaign and did everything to try and get the result they wanted, that was much more of an establishment movement than the Leavers. I think people honestly got a bit fed up of the remainers and probably had a protest vote but more protested than they thought.
No real provision had been made for a leave vote. I think the government ( in the wider sense ) were expecting a result similar to the 2014 Scottish referendum where the Leavers got 44.7% of the vote or something similar. Then Farage and co could have said they gave it a big go against the government machine but not close enough to demand another go.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 11, 2018 13:12:18 GMT
I honestly felt that the Remainers wheeled out all the possible Big Guns in the campaign and did everything to try and get the result they wanted, that was much more of an establishment movement than the Leavers. I think people honestly got a bit fed up of the remainers and probably had a protest vote but more protested than they thought. No real provision had been made for a leave vote. I think the government ( in the wider sense ) were expecting a result similar to the 2014 Scottish referendum where the Leavers got 44.7% of the vote or something similar. Then Farage and co could have said they gave it a big go against the government machine but not close enough to demand another go. I think in fact the Remain campaign was quite poor. While it had government backing and resourcing, it didn't strive for enough substance; it had big guns, but it actually didn't wheel them out, it kept them in storage. I agree there was an assumption and complacency about the result on Cameron's part. Everything about the reasoning for it was wrong - the EU was not a principal concern among the wider electorate and never ranked high as an issue in various polls; Cameron wanted to claw back voters lost to UKIP or prevent waverers from defecting, he had no real genuine concern about their view of the EU beyond how it might affect his standing and how many votes there might be in it. Indeed, as you say, absolutely no provision was made for the possibility of a Leave result. The entire Whitehall machine had to start from scratch after the referendum. In some ways, it probably still is. You are also right that a probably quite significant proportion of the Leave vote came from people in neglected areas feeling overlooked and ignored, a feeling which polarised into a desire to give the establishment a kicking, and the establishment seemed pro-EU so let's show them what we think. Re Farage, bear in mind he said that a 52-48 pro-Remain result would be 'unfinished business' (a phrase which hasn't passed his lips since). It's probably just about the only thing I'd agree with him on. If that had been the outcome, I'd have been pleased but also concerned at the level of discontent with the status quo, and I don't think it could have simply been left like that. I admit I'm not sure exactly what should have been done then, but I'd have been uncomfortable with nothing being done. It's a pity more brexiters don't think the same way about the actual outcome.
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 13:51:21 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2018 13:51:21 GMT
Cameron had said he would stand down in about 2018 so he just went early after Brexit and left others to pick up the mess!
The sort of big guns who needed to be wheeled out were the Party Leaders in unison plus a few respected Grandees
I think one wheel out featured John Major and Neil Kinnock both of whom were thoroughly rejected at the last election they lead their Parties into! Would people listen to them. Certainly Blair was a relevant person to speak up and say pro Euro Tory Grandee Ken Clarke etc.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 15:15:12 GMT
Post by lynette on Dec 11, 2018 15:15:12 GMT
Matthew, I won’t thank you for killing off the older voters... the demographic changes the day after any vote. Sadly not much clarity or 'education' has gone on since the R so the younger voters are probably not much the wiser. And many older voters voted Remain for example in my area. The Corbynistas should look closely at the Labour demographic to understand why he has been less than transparent about his views. My main concern is that the whole shambles has brought parliamentary representational democracy into disrepute. A referendum has never been part of that version of democracy and is by its very nature divisive. Luckily it went the way most of 'us' felt was ok in the Irish gay marriage Ref but if it had not, then would the Irish government have insisted on the status quo? At the risk of not being elected further? Referenda (?) are daft at best and lethal at worst. Cameron should have known that but he didn’t know the basics, that you should never, ever ask a question that you don’t know the answer to for sure ( or are not prepared to act on ) . Ask any parent with young children. You don’t ask if they want to go to bed or not, you ask if they would like five or ten minutes more downstairs. I’m afraid that it is General Elections that allow for democracy and the nuances therein, not Refs. But interestingly, now we are moving in the U.K. towards a multi party parliament with deals across parties. The two party system is dead, another outcome of the Ref and possibly not a bad one. I’m not for proportional representation as it allows the bad 'uns in as it would have meant more UKIP members for example and we can see similar happening in Germany. But I can see how people do feel not represented in our current system.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 11, 2018 17:07:37 GMT
I’m not for proportional representation as it allows the bad 'uns in as it would have meant more UKIP members for example and we can see similar happening in Germany. But I can see how people do feel not represented in our current system. UKIP would arguably have had less influence under a proportional voting system which gave them 20-30 seats in the Commons than they had when the two largest parties were both tying themselves into knots chasing the UKIP vote. Yes, they'd have had 20-30 seats in Parliament, but they wouldn't have been able to make the tail wag the dog the way they did in the run up to the referendum, and under a system in which every government depends on coalition and therefore compromise, nobody's policies are delivered undiluted (the Lib-Dems have been unfairly punished for this in the last two elections for not delivering manifesto promises that were never, ever going to be deliverable from the junior partners in a coalition). The winner-takes-all mentality in UK politics has a lot to answer for. It's what has created the mess we're in now. A 4% margin is not a mandate for a policy change that strips rights away from every single UK citizen.
|
|
1,912 posts
|
Post by sf on Dec 11, 2018 17:18:38 GMT
I honestly felt that the Remainers wheeled out all the possible Big Guns in the campaign and did everything to try and get the result they wanted, that was much more of an establishment movement than the Leavers. I think people honestly got a bit fed up of the remainers and probably had a protest vote but more protested than they thought. That's true. It's also fair to say that the woefully incompetent Remain campaign never attempted to gain control of the narrative in terms of patriotism and identity. They never managed to communicate what many of us feel: that is is perfectly possible, and in no way contradictory, to identify as (in no particular order) English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish and British and European, and that to identify as European as well as British does not mean you are somehow less patriotic. That was a major failure, not least because it left the door open for the Leave campaign's appalling brand of small-minded nationalism.
|
|
21 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 11, 2018 18:29:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by northernhomo on Dec 11, 2018 18:29:16 GMT
Is it me or has Mrs May been watching too much of Evita recently? This EU Tour is nothing more than a stalling tactic to stop Corbyn overthrowing her.
I think everyone remembers how Evita ended...
Not very well
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 7:49:29 GMT
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2018 7:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 8:21:52 GMT
Oh here we go. It’s no surprise, but I feel bad for May - no one wants to move house this close to Christmas.
|
|
4,607 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 12, 2018 8:33:08 GMT
Im sure she could stay at one of 100’s of homelss hostels this government has generously provided
|
|
3,080 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 8:38:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by Dr Tom on Dec 12, 2018 8:38:15 GMT
She will be much better off financially as soon as she’s no longer PM.
You don’t get the lucrative directorships, speaking engagements, book deals etc as PM.
Don’t former PMs get a certain amount of support for life anyway, things like personal security arrangements?
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 8:56:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 8:56:54 GMT
She’s just made a speech and she’s refusing to go. Woman knows where the bodies are buried, I’m telling you - sh*t about to hit the fan.
Going to be an interesting day!
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 10:51:41 GMT
Post by The Matthew on Dec 12, 2018 10:51:41 GMT
I was thinking "At least we don't have a Trump willing to wreck the country in a fit of pique", but we do. It's just that our Trumps are back benchers.
|
|
999 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 12:06:54 GMT
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 12, 2018 12:06:54 GMT
I don't think she'll be voted down. Well, I'll be surprised if she is. Most MPs, including some of those who think she's doing a terrible job, will recognise the chaos of having a leadership contest now and will consider her the lesser of two or three evils.
Going against that is the demented, staring-eyed religious devotion to brexit of the hard-line leavers in parliament who are willing to scorch the earth of everyone and everything they perceive as standing in its way. If they have sufficient numbers there's no question they'd be fine with creating as much wreckage as need be as long as the hardest possible brexit emerges from the smoking ruins. But do they have those numbers?
As for Johnson or Rees-Mogg: BJ doesn't have the numbers or sufficient support in the parliamentary party. More of them resent or are embarrassed by him than might be supposed. JRM has less credibility than might seem apparent from his high profile, which is out of proportion to his actual significance. And he embarrassed himself and his ERG chums with the aborted, shelved 'alternative deal' proposal that was apparently so bad even prominent brexiters like BJ and Davis backed away from it at speed and refused to be seen in its vicinity. Some were openly laughing at it. If by some ghastly miracle he became leader, a major Tory schism would be likely I reckon.
If it gets to it, I'd say Rudd, Hammond, Javid.... Davis? Gove? Hancock?
(swallows hard, takes deep breath)
....Hunt?
That was like a really depressing version of the names-list bit from Vogue. Whoever it is, we will be through the bottom of the barrel and into the fetid festering slime below.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 12:16:12 GMT
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 12, 2018 12:16:12 GMT
Im sure she could stay at one of 100’s of homelss hostels this government has generously provided Naturally, as one visits the food bank beforehand. This will be Theresa’s last Prime Minister Question Time, the fall has been nothing short of spectacular , when she was backed for PM by most of the Tory MP’s and when she looked arrogant and sited as delivering Brexit to call that fatal general election as a power grab, which she was correct retrospectively that she needed a bigger general election seats to deliever Brexit as witnessed this week. She is gone and good riddance, the next prime minister will be a conservative that will lead a coalition government but it won’t be Boris Johnson. A church going middle class racist but supports more wealth for the rich and fox hunting.
|
|
1,849 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 12, 2018 12:43:59 GMT
Quite apt for the time of year, Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Likelihood she will survive, if the Tory MP’s do get rid of her they are even more stupid than I thought, they will be leaderless without a succession plan and more importantly will have ntroduced more uncertainty to these already uncertain times, no one is even close to a workable solution which will now be hindered by a Ldership contest which only the self interested can vote. (seen a plea by leave UK for their supporters to join the Tory Party to influence the leadership election)
Having voted in every Election since I turned 18 beginning to lose faith in Democracy, as a collective we seem to have lost (or maybe it wasn’t there) the ability to see above, the self interest of the few, manipulated by sensationalism, to think we are more educated than at any other time in history, when you would expect the ‘IQ’ of the nation to be at its highest we seem to be more stupid than ever and even truer for our elected representatives.
|
|
999 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 13:07:58 GMT
Post by Backdrifter on Dec 12, 2018 13:07:58 GMT
According to research by BBC News she currently has the minimum required support to survive, ie 158 MPs. If that's accurate, as of the time of this post the rebels have less than five hours to convince enough waverers within the 158 to go the other way, which isn't inconceivable.
|
|
2,548 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 13:21:56 GMT
sf likes this
Post by n1david on Dec 12, 2018 13:21:56 GMT
According to research by BBC News she currently has the minimum required support to survive, ie 158 MPs. If that's accurate, as of the time of this post the rebels have less than five hours to convince enough waverers within the 158 to go the other way, which isn't inconceivable. I think she'll hang on, which in my opinion is something of a relief as there are very few politicians on either the Government or Opposition benches I'd like to see take over, and that's despite not being in the least bit a fan of Mrs May. There is the issue that it's a secret ballot, so MPs stating publicly that they will vote for her may do something else in the privacy of the polling booth. Thatcher of course won her first round (albeit under a different system), but within hours realised that she was wounded, and ended up standing down despite getting the numbers first time round. For a time today I thought that if May would get 100 or 130 votes against her, she would do a Thatcher and say well, I've won but there's obviously a strong body of opinion against me so I can't carry on. In reflection, she's had many setbacks, not least after the 2017 election, and she doesn't seem like the standing-down type, so even if she gets 157 votes against her then I think she'll carry on. In which case, what happens next? The EU27 seem pretty fixed in not changing anything in the legal agreement, and many of the MPs opposed to her agreement say that reassurances without legal weight won't change their minds, so it's likely that her deal will fall whenever it reaches the Commons. And then, what? Will we fall straight into no-deal planning (a nightmare), or will someone (May? If not, whom?) move to delay Brexit? Remember, we can cancel Article 50 unilaterally, but if we want to extend it, that requires the consent of 27 other countries. Would they give an extension, and if they said no, would we withdraw Article 50 in order to avoid no-deal? We live in interesting times. As someone fascinated by politics, it would be an incredibly fun period if it wasn't so f*cking important.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Dec 12, 2018 13:43:59 GMT
I really do despair at how utterly incompetent and childish many of the headline Brexiteers, particularly in the Tory party, are.
Calling a vote of no confidence in Theresa May achieves nothing except making them look extremely petty and willing to risk complete chaos just because they don't understand the concept of a negotiation and bargaining power. The UK is not as important as they think it is, the UK chose to leave the EU, the EU owes us nothing. So of course they will only agree a deal that is less than perfect for Britain.
Yes, the deal is crap, but it was always going to be. We were never going to get anything more and not a single person who opposes the deal has explained exactly what they would have negotiated instead and how the EU would definitely have accepted any alternative deal. Those opponents are living in cloud cuckoo land and clearly think their own grandstanding is more important than actually making progress on Brexit. Frankly they make me embarrassed to be British.
|
|
5,599 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 12, 2018 13:53:03 GMT
Do we think James Graham will put his play on at the NT or Donmar? Working title: Descent into Chaos.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Dec 12, 2018 13:57:30 GMT
Oh, it's got to be the Nash. You need the revolve for all the ministers resigning and being appointed and resigning and being appointed.....
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 14:11:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 14:11:49 GMT
She will be much better off financially as soon as she’s no longer PM. You don’t get the lucrative directorships, speaking engagements, book deals etc as PM. Don’t former PMs get a certain amount of support for life anyway, things like personal security arrangements? Former PMs certainly get good book deals and speaking engagements. Few tend to take on directorships - John Major did of a company called Mayflower which went bust!. But they will act as advisers/influencers etc being able to bring relevant people together/networking. A PM who stepped down used to get an automatic half salary pension for life even if they were still an MP - not sure how it worked if they remained party leader. This was changed in the last few years and David Cameron hasn't claimed his yet. The Lord Chancellor and Speaker were on similar deals - a lot of uproar occurred when Derry Irvine walked off with this lucrative pension. John Bercow is on this deal and has said he'll take this pension but not until he is 65. Former PM's tend to give up their seat as an MP when they step down from the top job now as if they are an MP then outside income has to be declared and likewise this might be why all recent PMs have shied away from going to the Lords whilst most other senior ministers or party leaders have accepted a peerage when they step down from the Commons.
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 14:27:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 14:27:41 GMT
People keep mentioning this third option, that Theresa May wins the majority this evening, but by a slim enough number that she decides the honourable thing to do would be to step down anyway. Does anyone honestly believe that she would even consider doing that? She called a snap election to try to increase her majority (ho ho), she's clearly grimly clinging on to power as best she possibly can. I don't see this evening's result being any different from that snap election - ultimately she'll still be in power, but with an increasingly tenuous grip and an increasingly mutinous government.
While I do believe the majority of MPs will vote in favour of not rocking the boat any further by having to go through another leadership election, I do find it incredibly depressing that none of the possible results this evening stand out as being "better" or, at this point, "less worse". She's in a terrible position that no one else sane could possibly want (and if it were possible to know the answer, I'd put serious money on some of her higher profile opponents secretly voting in favour of May because they do desperately want to be party leader, but not while the ship is sinking), and although there's been a lot of empathy and sympathy for that recently, I don't think much of that translates into believing she's doing a good job, and of the people who seem likely candidates for next party leader, I can't think of a single one who I'd welcome into number 10.
Pretty much your classic lose-lose scenario, and the biggest consequence is going to be that the government look like even bigger time-wasters than they currently do. Which is really going some!
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 14:34:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 14:34:25 GMT
The thing is if she does go then a leadership election takes time unless an uncontested contender emerges. MPs have to vote then I think it is a postal vote to members which would take us the other side of Xmas possibly into New Year. Constitutional issues - if the Queen is up in Scotland does new PM travel up there to be formally appointed or could Charles do it in her place!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 14:40:05 GMT
That's right, if there's only one person standing then it's uncontested, if three or more stand then the MPs vote until it's whittled down to two options, then that opens up to all party members to make the choice by post. A jolly way to pass the holiday season!
If I were the Queen, I'd make Charles do it no matter where I was at the time, just to have a bit of a break from it all.
|
|