UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Antonio the Sixth]

Going back the boundary things very quickly - yes, Wales has more seats that its entitled to.  That was an intentional malapportionment created when Wales did not have the Assembly in order to give it a bigger say in UK politics - Scotland had the same thing until 2005.  It was something created a long time ago - before Labour existed, I'm pretty sure.  When the Assembly gained primary legislative powers the plan has been to move towards equality for everywhere in the UK: had the Tories not made the decision to tamper with the rules that the boundary commission use in order to gain a political advantage (and mean that the boundaries drawn are actually worse; since the commission don't have the leeway that they need to produce good seats in a lot of places) then we'd have had a review by now and that discrepency would be fixed.  As it is, the 2012 review was killed by the Liberals because of the Tories deciding not to do Lords reform, and the current review will most likely be killed by the DUP since the Northern Ireland draft seats are TERRIBLE not just for them, but for Unionists more widely.

The sensible thing to do would be to move towards a compromise set of rules (650 seats, 10% threshold would work; the latter is basically as many seats as we have now, the latter is a threshold between the old one and the new one) and let a review go through - the involvement of all parties in the creation of new rules would give the commission's next review a mandate that the Zombie review and the current one did not have.

Ugh, disgusting that the Tories were trying to interfere with the commission's work for political gain. I thought UK parties were at least above this kind of cheating. Glad that this election threw a wrench into their plans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, this is horrifying. Britain really can't catch a break lately.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is absolutely sick, people at the landlord should be going to prison do the rest of their lives. It's also emblematic of where the housing crisis in London stands today - political decisions have helped cause this. Something needs to change

Yeah, exactly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is amazing. The next few years in British politics are going to be a treat to witness.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So I saw the full Question Time for the first time a couple days ago. It was great and I think it's a wonderful exercise of democratic debate, but one thing I found unbelievably silly are the majority MPs who will use their question to their own Prime Minister as an excuse to attack the other side, with the PM happy to oblige.

Stuff like "Madam Prime Minister, do you agree that the leader of the Opposition is a raving commie lunatic?" "I would like to thank the Right Honourable Gentleman from Bumblef**kshire East for his very thoughtful question. I do, in fact, agree that the leader of the Opposition is a raving commie lunatic, and would further add that he hates Britain and eats puppies."

Like, how pathetic is it? Like, I don't have anything against some old fashioned banter between parties - in fact I very much love it - but it's only banter if there is an actual exchange between two sides. This is the textbook definition of groupthink. How long have majority MPs done that, and PMs gone along with it?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I think it's possible to rightfully despise Blair as a person while at the same time recognizing that his first government actually did a lot of good things and can't be dismissed as a complete neoliberal sellout.

Still, I believe that there now is an opportunity for Labour to go above and beyond this legacy and propose bolder measures such as renationalization of utilities and support for workers' cooperatives in the private sector, which would be not just electorally viable but genuinely popular.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

Third-party candidates are just as likely to be at the ideological extremes as they are to be in the center. You obviously had 2010 in mind when you made that post, but then 2015 came along and Labour bled quite a few votes to UKIP. I don't know if these voters would ultimately have second-preffed Labour or the Tories, but at the very least, it would have given Miliband a reason to make more populist appeals rather than try to win over the middle ground - which IIRC is exactly what you wanted.

A solid left-wing force can command a majority of the vote, if faced with a clear enough alternative. The fact that you don't believe it can shows your lack of confidence in your own values, which is another sad pathology of the left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Corbynites sweep the newly created NEC seats. 62%, much like the 2:1 they won the earlier lot.

Splendid news!

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolukip

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, great. The Labour right is never going to accept Corbyn's legitimacy, is it? Thank God voters don't give a sh*t what these morons think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...this is bad.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

THE RIDE NEVER ENDS

[Antonio the Sixth]

oh boy, the bottom is really falling out for May, isn't it?

[Antonio the Sixth]

LibDems need to die. Britain deserves a real choice between left and right, not a bunch of Nice Woke Moderates who happily help the Tories gut the welfare state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most British people don't care that much about Brexit, especially remainers, and there is no market for any kind of remain-focused party. If there were, er, Vauxhall wouldn't have re-elected Kate Hoey?

LibDems need to die. Britain deserves a real choice between left and right, not a bunch of Nice Woke Moderates who happily help the Tories gut the welfare state.

That's fine, and like I keep saying to people for what four years now, if left-meme kiddies are happy with being a 250-seat opposition, this kind of arrogance is exactly what they should be espousing. Normal people who live in Nuneaton and drive cars will keep voting Tory. But one kind of lefty will get to beat another kind of lefty in the political equivalent of England v Belgium.

lol, I thought last year's election had dispelled the "muh Corbyn is unelectable" nonsense once and for all, but I guess some people are too Reasonable and Pragmatic to let the facts get in the way of their narratives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most British people don't care that much about Brexit, especially remainers, and there is no market for any kind of remain-focused party. If there were, er, Vauxhall wouldn't have re-elected Kate Hoey?

LibDems need to die. Britain deserves a real choice between left and right, not a bunch of Nice Woke Moderates who happily help the Tories gut the welfare state.

That's fine, and like I keep saying to people for what four years now, if left-meme kiddies are happy with being a 250-seat opposition, this kind of arrogance is exactly what they should be espousing. Normal people who live in Nuneaton and drive cars will keep voting Tory. But one kind of lefty will get to beat another kind of lefty in the political equivalent of England v Belgium.

lol, I thought last year's election had dispelled the "muh Corbyn is unelectable" nonsense once and for all, but I guess some people are too Reasonable and Pragmatic to let the facts get in the way of their narratives.

Even Labour edges it they won’t have a majority. Corbyn could only be a PM with a hung parliament

Right, and May was going to win 400+ seats last year.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Had she not mucked up the campaign, she would have done.

Maybe, maybe not. My point stands.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still think Corbyn is a poor leader, but what is true then (and now) is that his opponents would probably be even more inept. I don't mind Owen Smith, but his instincts (including the infamous attempt to out peacenik Corbyn by talking about dialogue with ISIS, which actually caused him to lose support with no real gain) are fairly bad. That includes Brexit: like him or not, Jezza understands that most Brits, whatever they voted in the referendum, are not wholly obsessed with the EU, which is why he took the seemingly cowardly route in the election of ignoring it in favour of kitchen sink issues. Basically Corbyn wins when he (and his team) talk about hard stuff that actually matters (like education and healthcare) rather than angsting about irrelevant stuff like Israel or Trident or the EU. (Same with the Tories: they polled well when May pretended she knew anything about economic issues, and collapsed when she campaigned on frivolous hot-button stuff like grammar schools and foxhunting.

Exactly. This is why I'm actually rooting for this government to bring the country to some kind of Brexit that everyone, whether they like it or not, can treat as a settled issue. Corbyn will be in a much better position when political debate shifts back to the economy and away from identity politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The initial concern when Corbyn was elected Leader was not that he would lead Labour to disaster or worse, but that his leadership might make it harder to regain power. The later idea that his leadership would result in 1931 all over again has been proven false, but that earlier concern remains perfectly valid.

Concern is always valid. God knows I get concerned every time an election draws near, no matter what the polls say. Asserting as a fact that Corbyn can't win, however, is nothing but blind hackery.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Most British people don't care that much about Brexit, especially remainers, and there is no market for any kind of remain-focused party. If there were, er, Vauxhall wouldn't have re-elected Kate Hoey?

LibDems need to die. Britain deserves a real choice between left and right, not a bunch of Nice Woke Moderates who happily help the Tories gut the welfare state.

That's fine, and like I keep saying to people for what four years now, if left-meme kiddies are happy with being a 250-seat opposition, this kind of arrogance is exactly what they should be espousing. Normal people who live in Nuneaton and drive cars will keep voting Tory. But one kind of lefty will get to beat another kind of lefty in the political equivalent of England v Belgium.

lol, I thought last year's election had dispelled the "muh Corbyn is unelectable" nonsense once and for all, but I guess some people are too Reasonable and Pragmatic to let the facts get in the way of their narratives.

You hope Labour wins every election as much as Corbyn won in 2017: winning nothing.

Corbyn shouldn't have re-published that picture of big-nosed men conspiring to run the world on the backs of humanity. Correct?

I'm on record saying Corbyn should have stepped down during the whole Labour antisemitism debacle (not because he's an antisemite himself, that's a ridiculous caricature, but because he's clearly turned a blind eye to people who were). Now, he hasn't, and given that the alternative are one of the vilest and most viciously right-wing parties in Western Europe, and that Labour is great on all the bread-and-butter issues, that won't change the fact that I want Labour to win and govern for as long as possible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Really, when you think about it, choosing a Remainer as their leader post-Brexit was always going to blow up in the Tories' faces. It has always been easy to question the sincerity of May's commitment to Brexit, even when she seemed to go all-in, and as soon as she conceded anything (and concessions are an inevitability in any negotiation) it was even easier to spin it into a massive betrayal. Had the Tories gone with Gove or Leadsom, they would probably have been far more able to make the hardliners swallow it. But no, instead they thought they could keep the hardliners out and appease them through rhetoric alone. As always with the Tories, their own arrogance doomed them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tbf there are very egregious flaws in all the main brexiters that weren't immediately apparent in May. Leadsom, for example, is very stupid; Fox is corrupt and Gove is a snake.

I mean yeah, I never said any of these people would be good as PM. I'm not convinced there is such thing as a good Tory to begin with.

Even if the Tories had gone with Gove, or Leadsom, you'd still have the same eventual outcome, and deal (albeit in slightly less friendly language to Brussels) and then the right would just blame the Cabinet members who were Remainers, or the civil service.

That you'd had a similar eventual deal was part of my point. That it would still be criticized, I mean maybe to some extent, but you have to agree that those criticisms would pack far less punch if you had a true-blue Brexiter at the helm endorsing and taking responsibility for the plan instead of someone like May, who's all too easy to paint as a crypto-Remainer who betrayed the British people.