-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
PJV3
Member
I've always been of the opinion that nothing can happen until the car crash is underway, it's going to be some kind of retreat under the guise of Brexit becoming a longer term project.
And unfortunately it will have to be done during the transition because UKIP are desperate for the political class to ignore the will of the people and give up before the 2 year exit period.
I guess my perspective is that the car crash is already well underway.
On your latter point, if it were during the transition, we're technically out of the EU by then, no? Which means rejoining with all of the associated obligations is a nigh impossibility. For a few decades at least. If anything good is going to happen (whether that be soft Brexit or calling the whole thing off), it really has to happen by March 2019. Good old Theresa triggering A50 in March just because she said she would.
PJV3
Member
I was thinking more of retreating to a Norway type outcome, I just don't see us being able to avoid leaving without creating a worse political situation.
I agree the car crash has begun, we just haven't hit anything yet, things are ticking along and we have a few years left if May or Boris doesn't implode the government.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
That's awful man, too many shit people about.
I get why Labour are sidestepping Brexit at this conference but it's still annoying. Guess I can't be too annoyed with them playing the game though, we need them to have as much support as possible.
Brexit has made too many dudes think racist shit is acceptable. Dude had to do it in a passing car though...
WhateverItTakes
Banned
Cowards, aren't they?
On a slightly related note, people see that Oxford student who stabbed a guy only got a suspended sentence? The privilege is fucking real...
May, Davis still have to present their deal to parliament next year so that's the out if they offer up a shit sandwich and politicians care about the country rather than themselves. There is still a tiny chance if anybody has a spine and common sense. Just have to hope the public have changed their tune more but I guess things will have to get quite dicey next year with companies pulling out etc.
Do they? Until their current Brexit bill passes (dependent on the nature of any amendments), there don't appear to be any guarantees that parliament will get a say on the final deal anyway, no?
And even if they did, the Tories could always force their way through with their pesky confidence and supply relationship. I know there are dissenting voices like Soubry, but they've shown themselves time and time to vote along party lines when push comes to shove.
I'm at peak cynicism these days admittedly, but I could envisage us getting to March 2019 and crashing out with no deal due to MPs' crippling anxiety of being seen to oppose the "will of the people" and some wanting the Tories to fully own the catastrophe regardless of collateral damage.
Hammond refuses to endorse May to lead Tories into next election https://t.co/yj4FjG9cPq
PJV3
Member
She's the last thing any of them want, she can brexit then Mexit, she's coming in handy for a few months though.
JonnyDBrit
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
But what happens if it gets voted down? Surely it's not "stop Brexit" but rather "No deal"?
Spuck-uk
Banned
It's frustrating, but I understand the old adage of 'don't interrupt your enemy when they're fucking up.'
Huw_Dawson
Member
It's obviously just a plot to keep focus on the Tories, rather than any sort of distaste for the EU by Labour's hard left. Corbyn is really on the Remain side. Him speaking against remaining in the Single Market because it prevents a Labour government from nationalising rail and whatnot is really just part of the game.
I mean I'd read this as Labour being run by folks that are happy for us to be out of the EU but want none of the responsibility or blame for the process. But I am not as good at 4D chess as Corbyn and McDonnell are.
Here's what would put pressure on the Tories: calling out Brexit for being awful and being bad for this country's poorest people, and using popularity and media visibility to change enough of the Brexit-voting populace's mind so that May etc lose their "will of the people" schpiel.
PJV3
Member
I don't think it's nefarious as you put it, Labour are in a pickle with a broadly pro EU membership and divided support around the country depending where they are.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Broadly pro-EU voters too. But the vast majority of Labour's votes are in safe seats. The issue you've hit on is that Labour has lots of Leave-voting marginals. But considering the leadership's and wider hard left's anti-EU history in this country, I think that is where you need to look to consider what's up with Labour.
But is the result not the same if you look at it both from an ideological perspective and one that looks at Labour's path to power? Labour -or at least the current leadership - are not going to pull off the mask and shout "aha, we were Remainers all along!" and force-quit the Brexit program if they won a GE. It's wishful thinking or projection to think they would.
It's a silly situation all around for them. But they have it far easier than the Tories who actually have to implement the mess.
I'll give enough fair play to Corbyn himself in that he's sane enough to keep his stance neutral and let the ministers involved with shadowing the Brexit process talk about it instead. But I don't buy that someone that voted against Maastricht and Lisbon, IIRC, is that keen on Europe himself, and that he's really just a hostage to white working class voters in Accrington.
My thought is that Labour know that their pro-Remain audience will put up with Brexit if it's a non-contentious issue as that pro-Remain audience has nowhere else to turn for all the stuff they are promising. "Brexit is fine as long as the railways are nationalised."
Spuck-uk
Banned
Didn't work so hot for the lib dems in the GE.
Going Full Remain would tank any chance of a left wing government right now, if public opinion changes, it won't be for a while. Austerity is a much better target for improving the lives of people worse off, and they are right to focus on it.
Hell even the lib dems ruled out a second referendum because they know it's electoral suicide.
PJV3
Member
Unless the Tories implode there is nothing Labour can really do anyway, we are 5 years from an election. Like you say, it's public opinion that needs to shift and that is only going to happen because of reality, not political statements.
If opinion does shift, things will be going badly and I can't see the three big parties being able to ignore it.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
I would say the British public aren't so gullible to accept such an obvious play but I'm not so sure.
Camp Freddie
Member
While Labour's refusal to talk about Brexit is cowardly, I think it's the only viable strategic option.
Labour are divided on Brexit and if they talk about it then the headlines (especially from the right wing press) will be about attacking Labour for being confused or "traitors".
By keeping quiet, the headlines remain focused on the May/Boris battle and the surrounding omnishambles.
I just hope that the position is clearer this time next year and that it will become more and more apparent that leaving the EU will be a disaster for everyone. Though I suspect Brexit will be kicked into the long grass with a transition deal.
Labour are divided on Brexit and if they talk about it then the headlines (especially from the right wing press) will be about attacking Labour for being confused or "traitors".
By keeping quiet, the headlines remain focused on the May/Boris battle and the surrounding omnishambles.
I just hope that the position is clearer this time next year and that it will become more and more apparent that leaving the EU will be a disaster for everyone. Though I suspect Brexit will be kicked into the long grass with a transition deal.
Huw_Dawson
Member
False, the policy was re-affirmed at our conference this month.
It also isn't electoral suicide if we gained seats with it as policy! At worst it's divisive.
The fact that the vast majority of Labour's voters appear to want the exact opposite to what Corbyn etc are pitching is baffling to me. It proves my point entirely that most Labour voters appear to be fine with Brexit if they get Corbyn.
Let me demonstrate this right now: Spuck, if Corbyn said tomorrow that on no accounts would Labour ever remain in the customs union and the single market, and would never return to being in the EU under any circumstances, would you still vote for them and that policy? Would you be satisfied if that was what a Corbyn government did?
Consider reality: if you can make the argument that Corbyn is being vague and unclear about Brexit so not as to deter Brexit voters, can you not also make the argument that they are being vague and unclear so not as to deter Remain voters? And considering the actual policy is a pro-Brexit one, how does the former make more sense than the latter - can anyone answer that question for me?
Its more that people are resigned to it happening, but think even Corbyn would be better than any Brexit handled by the Tories
Remain voters can't trust the Lib Dems anymore after 2010-15, can't trust the Tories because they appear to have gone absolutely fucking mental since the referendum, so are left with Labour - even though it means leaving
Spuck-uk
Banned
1. Is bollocks per the statistics re: remain/leave percentages voting Labour
2. It's not about 'getting Corbyn', as much as you want to frame it as a personality cult. It's about getting an actual left wing government, stopping austerity, and hopefully renationalising a bunch of critical services that really need it (which we explicitly cannot do in the EU). Oh and I want the Royal Mail back after Cable sold it at a discount to his mates.
It's hilarious that liberals still don't get that what they're offering does nothing for people who aren't a comfortable middle class. See also: democrats in America. 'More of the same shit' is worthless.
Spuck-uk
Banned
The Tories are back to being fucked because their more insanely right wing factions sem to really want to crash out ASAP and let everything burn.
Theonik
Member
Even better, signal this to everyone so they know you really can't let the negotiations fail.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Wasn't the Lib Dem manifesto for the 2017 election far better than Labour's on this front?
Remain lost the argument, lost the vote, convincing remain voters that Brexit has to happen now is much much easier than convincing Brexit voters that they won but we still wont leave.
Huw_Dawson
Member
QED.
FWIW you are the one bringing up Lib Dems today, oddly. Not me. The Lib Dem position could be to mount the country to boosters and fire us into the sun. What matters when discussing Labour's position is Labour, not anybody else.
No, the only people who said that were the biased liberal fake news media called the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Roberto Larcos
Member
So they shouldn't make a manifesto at all? And that will make more people take them seriously? I'm not sure what you want the Lib Dems (or indeed any party aside from the main two) to do.
CyclopsRock
Member
TimmmV's diagnosis is totally correct, though. The question you raise is a good indicator of how fuckeroo'd they are.
No of course not, but don't start blaming the "biased liberal fake news media" logic of people as to why the Lib Dem manifesto wasn't taken seriously.
It wasn't taken seriously because the Lib Dems have proven that they are willing to completely reverse their stance on core pledges in order to form a coalition - they just won't communicate which ones these are in the manifesto while they pretend they have any kind of chance of winning an election outright
If the Lib Dems want to start to be taken even remotely seriously again, they will have to communicate to people their plans for a coalition government, while also apologising a hell of a lot for 2010-2015
, and also to not elect homophobes for leaders
Roberto Larcos
Member
1. If they communicate what they're 'soft' on, they lose all leverage in any coalition negotiations, while essentially trading support for ire from the people supporting these soft pledges. Imagine the Lib Dems said they were soft on electoral reform, or education budgets, NHS funding, minimum wage rises, workers' rights... this is a non-starter for obvious reasons.
2. Clegg apologised already. It's probably not the best tactic to raise what people see as your biggest failing at every opportunity - it hardly demonstrates a break from the past. It's better to show that the past isn't as relevant - Labour have (by now, largely) gotten over the Iraq War, and university fees baggage - they didn't do that by raising it at every turn.
Why would they have to say what they're soft on?
They should be saying what their priorities are when working with a government and red line issues should a coalition be on the cards.
I don't know why you're talking about what they'd be soft on. Manifesto is for best outcome from elections.
Let's be honest, LibDems being the majority party in power is a pipe dream, it should realistically aim to be a kingmaker, so do that with priorities instead of being soft on things.
They should be saying what their priorities are when working with a government and red line issues should a coalition be on the cards.
I don't know why you're talking about what they'd be soft on. Manifesto is for best outcome from elections.
Let's be honest, LibDems being the majority party in power is a pipe dream, it should realistically aim to be a kingmaker, so do that with priorities instead of being soft on things.
That's still better than what they have now - which is to make a 'hard' pledge and then really piss off its supporters when you go back on it, to the point where your % of votes goes from 23 to 7.9. At least with this hard/soft thing you imagine the Lib Dems could say it was only a soft pledge
Not that they would have to do that anyway - it seems entirely realistic to me to have some red lines that absolutely will not be crossed, and then proposed pledges for coalitions with both Labour and the Conservatives. This wouldnt effect leverage at all because the Lib Dems get their leverage by being in a position to turn a minority government into a coalition one, not from their promises. From there it's up to them to negotiate from the list of plans with whichever party they negotiate.
You have to remember that the Lib Dems have absolutely zero credibility at the moment. Making a more honest manifesto would be a step towards recovering that
None of the Lib Dems actions since have made that apology appear remotely sincere though, until they address that it is something that will be brought up regardless of whether Clegg apologised or not.
Spuck-uk
Banned
Agreed, which is why them ruling out being part of a coalition in the GE was particularly lolworthy.
CyclopsRock
Member
Christ on a fucking bike though.
https://mobile.twitter.com/the_awakend/status/906769808796110853
The way he weirdly defends it, posts a link to squawkbox showing the methodology (though the text says they can't show the methodology because it's "proprietary" aka made up), the way James O'Brien is right wing, the way Nick Robinson and Laura Keunssberg (and Janan Ganesh) are in the same category as Richard Littlejohn.
What a wanker.
https://mobile.twitter.com/the_awakend/status/906769808796110853
The way he weirdly defends it, posts a link to squawkbox showing the methodology (though the text says they can't show the methodology because it's "proprietary" aka made up), the way James O'Brien is right wing, the way Nick Robinson and Laura Keunssberg (and Janan Ganesh) are in the same category as Richard Littlejohn.
What a wanker.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Peter Hitchens is left wing? Learn something new every day!
"Quirky" vs "Twats"
Don't need a table to see where this guy's bias lies.
CyclopsRock
Member
I mean he's not wrong about Toby Young but...
Spuck-uk
Banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-speech-labour-leader-capitalism-conference-renting-grenfell-tower-fire-theresa-may-a7970441.html
The sooner this happens the better, especially for you poor bastards in London
The sooner this happens the better, especially for you poor bastards in London
QuicheFontaine
Member
Rent caps sound appealing, but do they really work? Wouldn't it just result in fewer rooms available for rent?
Spuck-uk
Banned
Works/ed just fine in NYC before they started dismantling it.
It would slow the massively harmful practice of buy to let and hopefully cool off the insane housing market in the capital.
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno, from what I understand in a lot of places or sort of fucks the market up, because you end up with a massive disparity between the rent-capped places and the not-rent-capped-places. It's great for those that get one, and even worse for those that don't.
Also, having a local "veto" over areas sounds nice if you're trying to combat gentrification but a) it's a form of nimby'ism, which we all hate when it's middle class people complaining about important infrastructure but not when it's local people concerned about their area, when in reality they're basically both people concerned about their area. You also often have directly opposed goals, and it's not obvious to me that the local people that live there's desire to maintain the status quo trumps the desire for other people to live there or for housing to become more affordable for those who don't yet have a foot on the ladder and b) sometimes gentrification is good. I work in Bethnal Green and the place is a total fucking shit hole. I hate it here. The only place which isn't just corner shops and dilapidated housing stock with drug dealers hanging around outside and three legged, tatooed dogs is Broadway Market, which is basically the only road which has been gentrified and is much better off for it. Even then the tatooed tripod dog often makes his way there.
Yeah, the veto over local redevelopments is a bad idea and bad policy. It assumes gentrification is always negative, and always puts the power in the hands of nimbys.
There is nothing inherently good about somewhere being a dump. Gentrification is only an issue because there is no where live able on low wages in London anymore. Any policy that would prevent somewhere like Brixton or Clapham gentrifying like they have done in the last few years is a bad policy through and through.
There is nothing inherently good about somewhere being a dump. Gentrification is only an issue because there is no where live able on low wages in London anymore. Any policy that would prevent somewhere like Brixton or Clapham gentrifying like they have done in the last few years is a bad policy through and through.
- Status