-
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 |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
CyclopsRock
Member
May needs to get Smiley in there, find the mole!
PJV3
Member
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/ukip-donor-arron-banks-hints-he-may-stop-supporting-party
Potential trouble at UKIP mill.
Please Mr Banks, take your money and go away.
Potential trouble at UKIP mill.
Please Mr Banks, take your money and go away.
anonymous_abc
Member
Roberto Larcos
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Think that was dumb for Labour. Something as complicated as this? You can't rush it; you only get one shot. The line should have been: it's done when it's done.
PJV3
Member
Lol, I really think Boris wants the sack.
May is grovelling in the middle east and Boris starts having a pop at the Saudi leadership.
I don't disagree with him, ignoring the fact that we love sticking our noses in for our own national interests, but he's supposed to be diplomatic.
May is grovelling in the middle east and Boris starts having a pop at the Saudi leadership.
I don't disagree with him, ignoring the fact that we love sticking our noses in for our own national interests, but he's supposed to be diplomatic.
ultratruman
Banned
UK Labour are not a functional party.
CyclopsRock
Member
You're talking about the A50 bill... Sorry, Act? I mean, what can be "done"? It seems that everyone's intending to actually stick to the whole "don't negotiate til it's triggered" stuff. So what is there to wait and get right?
To have a comprehensive, coherent plan before we actually enter into the most complicated legal undertaking in history? As it is, even the government doesn't have a singular vision for what they want from Brexit. To say it has two visions would be generous. Basically - "I'm seeing double here - four Brexits!"
One of the (many) sad side effects of Brexit, news like the transport secretary doing such a poor job that people within his own party are calling for him to resign (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-chris-grayling-letter-leaked-a7460586.html) gets buried.
As someone who commutes within London daily, my thoughts are thus:
Fuck off, Chris.
As someone who commutes within London daily, my thoughts are thus:
Fuck off, Chris.
PJV3
Member
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/boris-johnsons-remarks-about-saudi-arabia-not-the-governments-view
Sorry Boris you must try harder to get the boot, try pissing in the PM's tea live on the telly or something.
Sorry Boris you must try harder to get the boot, try pissing in the PM's tea live on the telly or something.
Shadowhelper
Banned
Well, it's too late now, but what could've been done is Labour demanding a second referendum to activate article 50.
People said it couldn't get that bad in Greece. People said that it couldn't get that bad in Spain. Brexit will forever impoverish the country and break up the union.
All the evil this country has done, all the benefits accrued from it? Flushed down the toilet. Willingly handing over our creation and status of literally centuries worth of being the banking capital of the world. Poverty and homelessness is genuinely exploding in this country. And the axe hasn't even dropped yet. We will feel Greeces pain.
So earlier this week the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, overturned an earlier decision to give Transport for London control over the suburban rail services for the capital. He said this was a decision based on costs.
Unfortunately, in a 2013 letter he sent then London mayor Boris Johnson, Mr Grayling said he did not want a potential Labour mayor to have control of suburban rail services.
Really shocking stuff, and even the Tory MP, Bob Neill, who's chair of the Justice Select Committee, has demanded his resignation or firing, and said he's unfit for office.
Unfortunately, in a 2013 letter he sent then London mayor Boris Johnson, Mr Grayling said he did not want a potential Labour mayor to have control of suburban rail services.
Really shocking stuff, and even the Tory MP, Bob Neill, who's chair of the Justice Select Committee, has demanded his resignation or firing, and said he's unfit for office.
CyclopsRock
Member
But how does that present itself, practically? We can't have May come out and say "Here's what we want from Brexit - financial passporting, mutual domicile for existing resident migrants, control otherwise over borders, free movement of goods and services, extraction from the ECJ and membership of the European patent system." Even if she does want all those things, she can't say it, in the same way the EU will never come out and say what they want. There's no practical way a negotiation can work in that situation unless you're deck is so overwhelmingly stacked (ie the Allies dictating the terms of the Japanese and German surrenders in 44 and 45).
I don't think this has anything to do with what I asked.
Why not?
Because she'll never get all that she wants, and she'll look like a fool. However, this vague meaningless nonsense is making her look just as foolish.
There's a clear argument that she should be putting pressure on the EU by saying we would like X,Y and Z and are willing to give up A,B and C. For instance, we wish an agreement similar to Turkey in terms of the Customs Union which would still allow us to do FTA's and financial passporting in return we'll continue membership and funding of Horizon, Erasmus and pay X amount in 'development funds'. The particulars themselves aren't the issue, just that she and her government actually have some reasonable positions they can actually quantify.
Of course she can't do that without pissing off a proportion of the Brexiteers who each think Brexit is something slightly different. Far better for May, if not the country, to keep schtum and present whatever she ends up with as what she was aiming to get in the first place.
Again - this is to imply that the government a) has a coherent list of what they want from Brexit (which, even if we just go off the contradictory and unrealistic things different ministers are saying, they don't), b) a plan for how to get them (they don't) or c) the necessary manpower to negotiate and implement Brexit (they don't).
Delaying Brexit gives them time to get their ducks in a row. People - even Theresa May, who I'm sure would secretly love a bit of breathing room - are terrified to do so because they'll be attacked as TRAITOROUS OLYMPIAN GAYS.
Labour are publicly and repeatedly saying that they're not satisfied the government have any of these things and it will lead to catastrophe - but are too shit scared of losing seats to UKIP to actually do anything about it, like refusing to agree to trigger Article 50 until they're satisfied the government aren't running around like headless chickens (Corbyn's original position, which lasted about twelve seconds before Tom Watson came out with something totally different).
There are options between "Give us a full list of your negotiating terms" and "Fuck it, this is the most important two years in modern British history, on which the future prosperity of this country could hinge, why not just figure it out as you go along?"
Delaying Brexit gives them time to get their ducks in a row. People - even Theresa May, who I'm sure would secretly love a bit of breathing room - are terrified to do so because they'll be attacked as TRAITOROUS OLYMPIAN GAYS.
Labour are publicly and repeatedly saying that they're not satisfied the government have any of these things and it will lead to catastrophe - but are too shit scared of losing seats to UKIP to actually do anything about it, like refusing to agree to trigger Article 50 until they're satisfied the government aren't running around like headless chickens (Corbyn's original position, which lasted about twelve seconds before Tom Watson came out with something totally different).
There are options between "Give us a full list of your negotiating terms" and "Fuck it, this is the most important two years in modern British history, on which the future prosperity of this country could hinge, why not just figure it out as you go along?"
But that's always the case, isn't it? If you could get evwrything you wanted there would be no negotiation. You can't even start a negotiation without claiming to want something.
CyclopsRock
Member
Right, but that's different to what you're ok settling with. We are all making the assumption that May doesn't know what she wants, but what's that based on? If she did have an ideal list, would we know? If so, how would we know? Feasibility studies are hard to conduct when the other side won't even informally agree to a mutual immigrant domicile situation.
We know what May wants. A red white and blue Brexit. At least that's an improvement on 'Brexit means Brexit' so yay for competence I suppose.
Besides which, given that and her past rhetoric and actions undertaken as Home Secretary, I wouldn't trust May to have a plan that is actually best for the country. Parliament should be tying her hands as strictly as possible, and telling her exactly what grounds she can negotiate on.
If she doesn't like that, she can go to the country and get a mandate for her authoritarian, xenophobic views. Best of luck to her.
I don't know if you want to poke that particular bear.
CyclopsRock
Member
I just don't understand what you guys think "a plan" looks like, given the obvious suicidal negotiating tactic that showing one's cards is. I've heard drips and drabs from people about various policies the government is planning to pursue, and I don't know if they're a) accurately being reported to me or b) are being accurately reported to me but not necessarily going to be the actual position of HM Government by the time negotiating starts. But none of these are "public" in the sense that they aren't disclosed in departmental briefings or written up in newspapers. So, yeah, what does a plan look like?
Members of the government not publicly having different expectations for Brexit to one another. Leaked memos that say "the government does have a plan." Stories coming out from the civil service that don't describe the re-organisation process as being in chaos. A message from the government beyond "We thought of a new adjective to put before "Brexit" this week."
Frankly, the least likely explanation for me is the government totally having a watertight plan for history's greatest legal undertaking that they've pieced together over a few months, they're just super savvy negotiators.
Frankly, the least likely explanation for me is the government totally having a watertight plan for history's greatest legal undertaking that they've pieced together over a few months, they're just super savvy negotiators.
It's a time limited negotiation process. We should have the opening position laid out, and it should be public. There's no pulling the wool or surprising the 'enemy' at some point you're going to have to stake out the opening position it may not be the final position or what you're willing to end up with, it may be pie in the sky best case scenario but it's not a fucking poker game if you're the one seeking access you're going to have spell out what the fuck it is you're actually looking for at some point. Customs Union (in/out), Single Market membership (yes/no) etc.
We're going to end up sending a one line letter invoking A50, the EU will take a couple of weeks to respond. We'll then need to stake out our opening position. It's just wasted time in a process which doesn't have any real time flexibility.
I don't get it either.
The EU doesn't get 1 minute to decide their offer and like you said, both sides know what each has. They aren't saying shit because they have nothing and will get nothing surprising.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You can have a plan that covers potential outcomes. So, even if we don't know if the EU will take tactic A, B, or C, we can have a plan that says "If A, then D, if B, then E, if C, then F". As it is, Labour seems relatively content to let the Conservatives do whatever they want as long as they do it publicly.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's not about "surprising" anyone, it's about what you're actually willing to sacrifice (or to what degree) without saying as much before negotiations begin. It's only by doing it this way that we can say "Ok, fine, we will maintain free movement of people *but* we want financial passporting in return" (or whatever). Given the largely political (rather than economical) expected nature of these negotiations (pour encourager les autres etc), this is necessary so everyone thinks they have their pound of flesh. That's why I don't see how Crabs idea of contingency planning can work *if* those plans are made public.
In other, somewhat less Brexity news - the Tories won the Sleaford by-election (the seat that Stephen Phillips quit over, well, the government's supposed "hard Brexit" leanings):
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38258976
It seems to be a real true blue seat so it's not surprising that the Tories held it - the story is that Labour went from second to fourth, behind UKIP and the Lib Dems.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38258976
It seems to be a real true blue seat so it's not surprising that the Tories held it - the story is that Labour went from second to fourth, behind UKIP and the Lib Dems.
Jezbollah
Member
So the raw numbers of the by-election are:
(last numbers are change from 2015 GE)
Caroline Johnson (Con), 17,570, 53.5% -2.7
Victoria Ayling (UKIP), 4,426, 13.5% -2.2
Ross Pepper (LD), 3,606, 11.0% +5.3
Jim Clarke (Lab), 3,363, 10.2% -7.1
Marianne Overton (Lincolnshire Independent ), 2,892, 8.8% +3.1
Nice bump for the LDs there, no doubt Remainers, and that the Ind is a popular wildcard (only 500 votes less than Labour!)
(last numbers are change from 2015 GE)
Caroline Johnson (Con), 17,570, 53.5% -2.7
Victoria Ayling (UKIP), 4,426, 13.5% -2.2
Ross Pepper (LD), 3,606, 11.0% +5.3
Jim Clarke (Lab), 3,363, 10.2% -7.1
Marianne Overton (Lincolnshire Independent ), 2,892, 8.8% +3.1
Nice bump for the LDs there, no doubt Remainers, and that the Ind is a popular wildcard (only 500 votes less than Labour!)
JonathanEx
Member
Bloody media bias, underplaying Labour's success in by-elections.
My partner is a reporter in that patch, and mood seems to be that it's no surprise that it's a Tory hold. Also a lot of campaigning has been focused on Sleaford itself - not the rest of North Hykeham. Fair enough, I couldn't imagine it really going elsewhere but it's down the results table that the real story is as others have already said.
Local gossip is claiming Phillips quit more over being passed over for various jobs, but then, those bitter he quit would be against him so no idea on accuracy.
My partner is a reporter in that patch, and mood seems to be that it's no surprise that it's a Tory hold. Also a lot of campaigning has been focused on Sleaford itself - not the rest of North Hykeham. Fair enough, I couldn't imagine it really going elsewhere but it's down the results table that the real story is as others have already said.
Local gossip is claiming Phillips quit more over being passed over for various jobs, but then, those bitter he quit would be against him so no idea on accuracy.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yikes. I can't see the Lib Dems hoovering of Remain voters making them huge gains at a GE if one were held next year, but I can see it splitting the left vote pretty hard.
Jezbollah
Member
Yep the LDs parking themselves in hard Remain will take a lot of votes from all the other parties (except UKIP, lol). I can see them winning back a lot of seats, especially those in the West Country that the Tories targeted so effectively last GE - a major reason they got their Majority. I think the Tories will more than take that loss of vote by standing as THE Brexit Party, hoovering up a ton of UKIP and Labour non-London votes.
I saw John Harris (Guardian) say that: "Whatever happens, Lab screwed. Perceived as metro, pro-EU by old core vote & shambolic,anti-EU by m/ c remainers" - Thats a really hard position to be in.
Yup, which is exactly why the Tories are acting like the 51.9% result was a 91.9% result
They know that so long as they continue down this Hard Brexit path (which is contrary to a lot of early pro-Leave rhetoric), that's a voting base that's unlikely to abandon them no matter their policies in all other areas.
JonathanEx
Member
I think it was the New Statesman today which described Labour as being at risk of becoming the party of the 0% with this strategy.
Personally where I am right now I'd stick Labour, but that's because I think we've got a good local MP. Elsewhere, I may consider LD. I do wonder if the LD's being more vocal can get through to those who thought 'never again' after tuition fees mess when it comes to young voters.
Personally where I am right now I'd stick Labour, but that's because I think we've got a good local MP. Elsewhere, I may consider LD. I do wonder if the LD's being more vocal can get through to those who thought 'never again' after tuition fees mess when it comes to young voters.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's undoubtedly beneficial for them to do that, but at the same time it's not at all obvious what "the people" want a Brexit to look like. The majority of the official Remain's campaign was about the economic consequences of a Hard Brexit - and that campaign failed to convince over half the voters. Similarly, the mid point between two opposing views is not necessarily the best place to end up. Leaving the EU but keeping our foot in the water risks alienating almost everyone, where no one feels like they have got what they want except those who were stuck in the middle (of which I was actually one, so personally I'd love to see that outcome!) Finally, it's an inherently exclusive thing - whoever does get what they want will inevitably outnumbered by those who don't. That's the way of it when there are more than two possible outcomes, almost always.
I would offer a bet that that's exactly where we'll end up, but I doubt you'd take that bet
Polls for Tories get even higher, Labour's go lower and lower.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/voting-intention-labour-voting-intention-lowest-le/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/voting-intention-labour-voting-intention-lowest-le/
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...efuses-to-apologise-for-saudi-arabia-comments
Looks like he really does want to get fired. No one would argue that SA fund terror, and this way he goes out looking like the underdog standing up to suck-up May.
Anything to get out of doing a real job.
Looks like he really does want to get fired. No one would argue that SA fund terror, and this way he goes out looking like the underdog standing up to suck-up May.
Anything to get out of doing a real job.
Yup, he wants to go back to being a celebrity politician. He screwed himself with his disgusting Brexit gambit and now he's looking for a way out while maintaining his "man of the people" bullshit.
dapperbandit
Banned
Plenty of people would agree with him though
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't think many actually disagree with him. It just is incredibly unprofessional and weakens his diplomatic position. In his position, words have incredible importance. Diplomacy is a subtle art.
Reality would too, the issue is that Boris is doubling down on a very public split from the Government line only a few months into his new job.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked