UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:54:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.  (Read 70316 times)
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« on: August 03, 2019, 05:39:58 AM »

Field's announcement is that he is forming a new party, the "Birkenhead Social Justice Party", and will stand in the next election under this label.

Slightly underwhelming announcement given the speculation that preceded it.

In particular the Brexit Party seemed to have real hopes that he might become one of theirs.

... or at least their media cheerleaders did.  I'm a little bit suspicious that F*r*g* doesn't want high profile defections after his experience with Douglas Carswell.

This gets to the question of what the brexit party really is. If he was looking for a longer lasting thing, he would want defectors (admitedly, less are available since to tories keep giving into the ERG) but if its supposed to remain a personality party with no chance at number 10 then he would not want defectors to steal his thunder. If the parties goal was to change the debate on Brexit then they have already succeeded: May is gone, Boris is an ally, and the Tories want to leave in October no matter what.

So we have to ask, what does farage want from this Breixt party project right now, as they start to slip in the polls. I can think of three end goals for running in the eventual westminister election, rather then endorsing/teaming up with Boris. They are:

1) Farage is an accelerationist and wants to ruin the Tory Brexit and give power to the remainers, to hope he can push Leavers further into his camp. The problem is of course, if accelerationism worked, the world would have a lot more communist governments.

2) Farage is playing Littlefinger politics, and just wants chaos because chaos makes him valuable. The more chaos in the system, the more people are going to look elsewhere. Farage doesn't care what happens to the big picture if this is true, all he cares about is keeping the next rung on the ladder always in reach.

3) Perhaps the most likely option: Farage just wants a position in whatever political reality is to come. With the UK leaving the EU, he loses his paycheck and his microphone. Aquiring westminister seats give him access to both. If this reason is true though, he is losing control of the project. The narrative is leaving the Brexit party behind as Boris now beats the No Deal drum. If this is the real reason, Farage has every reason to try and cut a deal with the tories for seats, access, and a podium if The Brexit party starts becoming irrelevant in the polls.

Farage gets literally both of those things from his daily LBC radio show. In fact, he gets better paid and has a wider and more regular audience than he would as a Tory backbencher or the leader of the 4th/5th/6th largest party in the Commons.

I think you're right about the first two points, though. Farage probably thinks quite highly of his political abilities given the events of the past few years. He has every reason to think he's got some insight that will deliver him more power if he just stirs up enough trouble.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2019, 12:57:03 AM »
« Edited: September 02, 2019, 02:27:37 AM by cp »

The smartest thing for Boris to do would be to call an election with No Deal as the official manifesto, allow BP to die, deselect anybody who can't accept that it's part of the manifesto, roll over the divided Remainers and pretend to the tired public that no deal would represent an end to this stupid phase.

Is it that smart, though? Standing on a manifesto to pursue a hard Brexit with a deal was what the Tories did in 2017; UKIP collapsed and they *still* didn't win. A manifesto with an explicit no-deal pledge (rather than as a last resort if a deal is impossible), as Farage has insisted would be required,  seems much more likely to be a net vote loser for the Tories. Sure, they might pick up a lot of Brexit Party support in the midlands and the north, but most of those seats have such huge Labour margins it wouldn't win the Tories many seats. Meanwhile, a no deal platform could see the Tories lose everything they have in Scotland, London, and any university/market towns in the SE.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2019, 08:52:54 AM »

The smartest thing for Boris to do would be to call an election with No Deal as the official manifesto, allow BP to die, deselect anybody who can't accept that it's part of the manifesto, roll over the divided Remainers and pretend to the tired public that no deal would represent an end to this stupid phase.

Is it that smart, though? Standing on a manifesto to pursue a hard Brexit with a deal was what the Tories did in 2017; UKIP collapsed and they *still* didn't win. A manifesto with an explicit no-deal pledge (rather than as a last resort if a deal is impossible), as Farage has insisted would be required,  seems much more likely to be a net vote loser for the Tories. Sure, they might pick up a lot of Brexit Party support in the midlands and the north, but most of those seats have such huge Labour margins it wouldn't win the Tories many seats. Meanwhile, a no deal platform could see the Tories lose everything they have in Scotland, London, and any university/market towns in the SE.

Maybe I'm more pessimestic than you, because I think there are a fair decent number of seats in areas like South Yorkshire and Tees Valley that could fall in such an election - at least more than the total Tory seats in England and Wales that would probably fall in the event of a Hard Brexit manifesto (especially if Lib Dems are hiving off the Hard Remainers from Labour's total numbers in the aforementioned market towns etc).

Even London etc is tricky. We already saw the cocky predictions that Labour made for the locals, where they confidently stated the pro-Labour trend in London was inevitable. The three Barnet marginals, for example, are going to be a hard get for Labour, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dem vote becomes vastly inflated in such areas. Besides, the more pro-Brexit outer suburbs which liked BoJo in his Mayoral runs (for example, Jon Cruddas's Dagenham seat) could offset probable losses like Mark Field in the Cities of London and Westminster.

I'm pretty bearish about Lab/LD chances in the SE, tbh. I doubt it would end up being a net loss for them, but based on numbers and anecdotal observation (I live in Esher & Walton), the Tories have a pretty formidable wall of incumbents.

That said, I think the wall is even more formidable for Labour in the north. Not only do they have the same or larger margins in the seats they hold, they've already lost most of the most susceptible seats. Add to that the deep resentment in the area toward the Tories and I think you've got a recipe for Tory fools gold.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2019, 10:24:47 AM »

do you feel the tories are going to lose some of their Surrey strongholds then?

As things stand today I wouldn't bet on it, but the material is there for an upset. It would require a formidable challenge by the Brexit Party AND mass tactical voting by Lab/LD/Green voters AND a historic low turnout among traditional Tory voters.

Have to say Boris has played this great.

He’s talking with all the bluster of a confident leader that’s gung ho on a No Deal if need be, thus weakening the Brexit Party DRAMATICALLY. Now he seems primed to call an election with a weakened Labour, a handcuffed Brexit party: He’s going to thread the needle to a majority

Must ... not ... feed ... trolls ...
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2019, 11:02:19 AM »
« Edited: September 02, 2019, 11:07:43 AM by cp »

Johnson got a bump in the polls, almost exclusively from siphoning off about 1/3 of the Brexit Party's support (around 5-7 points). That's put the Tories back into the low 30s, about 10 points ahead of Labour who are still splitting the bulk of the anti-Tory/Brexit vote with the Lib Dems (who are at around 18-22%).

Qualitatively, Johnson's tenure has been a psycho/melo-drama with feverish stories about his principal aide Dominic Cummings pulling all the strings. Johnson has averaged about one new spending announcement per week, with figures and policies that sound more New Labour than anything else.

An election now is a complete crap shoot. Depending on when it happens, vis a vis the UK leaving the EU, it could result in anything from a Tory majority to a Labour majority to anything in between.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2019, 02:14:22 PM »

It sounded like the intended audience of that speech was a dozen Conservative MPs. Why bother with a press conference?

The most notable sound from that speech was the protesters chanting "stop the coup" so loudly they nearly drowned Johnson out!

Also, it must be remembered that thanks to the FTPA* it is no longer in the government's gift to decide when to dissolve parliament and hold an election. Unless Johnson orders one of his MPs to propose a motion of no confidence against his own government and then orders all his MPs to vote *against* it, he cannot just "call" an election.

*(The Fixed Term Parliaments Act stipulates only two scenarios in which an election may be called prior to its statutory date: a motion of *very specific* wording indicating no-confidence in the government being passed and then not being repealed within a period of 14 days, OR a 2/3 vote of the entire parliament (434 votes; quorum does not factor in) calling for an early election.)

For the record, it seems unlikely Johnson will get the votes for an early election, as many Labour MPs will abstain unless they feel it is to their party's advantage to bring down the government.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2019, 01:53:27 AM »

If a society chooses to use a referendum, it better abide by the results.  It is not a pretense.   

The people made the decision, live with it. 

And given that the people made the decision to go down this path, you can just as easily argue that it is only proper to have a 2nd referendum asking how they want to exit (or whether they want to abort), given how incredibly bad the situation has been handled, and how indecisive the government has been on what appears to be no good options. It doesn't really make sense to say the people should be weigh in on leaving, but then when the govt cannot agree on how, that the people shouldn't again be given options for proceeding. Arguing against that seems more like fear that the people may choose to stay after all, in light of what has happened since (and what they have learned).

Indeed. A referendum can be democratic or it can be irreversible, but not both.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2019, 06:28:14 AM »

Good point, although I'd say that's a separate, though relevant, matter to the one gustaf brought up. The fact that the referendum question was vague and stipulated as 'advisory' granted wiggle room to Leave advocates during the campaign and Leave supporting politicians afterward. No doubt, this was a tactical advantage in winning the referendum but has turned out to be a strategic mistake. However, it's not a reason in and of itself for why the result of the referendum need not be implemented no matter what.

The matter of whether the referendum result - however badly worded the question - can or ought to be implemented without being annulled/preempted is more about democratic legitimacy than politicking. I grant that there is a pragmatic argument for not holding referendums on the same (massive) issue every few years, but having a confirmatory vote on an initial proposition is neither novel nor undemocratic. As it happens, many on the leave side proposed doing just this when they thought they were going to lose the first one!

Separately, I agree that a government/ruling class blithely ignoring the results of a referendum it called is arrogant and irresponsible, but I don't really think that applies here. The May/Johnson governments have tried - to the exclusion of almost all else, it seems - to implement the result as best they can. The fact that their efforts have been so hapless and incapable of garnering majority support in Parliament or among the general population doesn't negate the fact that they *did* try. Presented with such a state of affairs, calling for a second referendum on the same issue, albeit with clearer terms, is probably the most responsible course of action.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2019, 02:28:43 PM »


Chaos with Ed Milliband.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2019, 12:40:07 AM »
« Edited: September 06, 2019, 12:45:40 AM by cp »

According to numerous sources, a Tory MP from Gunganshire Sir Nigel Binks, is about to propose a renewal of the Treachery Act of 1940 to deal with the rebel MPs.

He always was a duplicitous mofo.

I'm ashamed of how long it took me to realize this was a Star Wars reference.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2019, 09:57:10 AM »


Leaving Europe now apparently includes bringing German customs and politics to Britain...

Anyway it didn't work out too well for Schröder when he pulled this stunt as the opponent he hoped to beat in that snap election has been the chancellor for 14 years, but I'm sure mastermind BoJo will be more successful. Roll Eyes

I doubt even BoJo could cause Corbyn to stay in power that long.

Lol. Corbyn would be 84 after 14 years. Not sure even the most diehard fans would want to see him in office after that long.

Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2019, 12:35:59 PM »

I think the most likely outcome is that Boris simply chooses to ignore the Benn Act. This is blatantly illegal, of course, but would anything really happen to him?

He could be impeached from office by a vote of parliament, expelled from parliament, and/or have a vote of no confidence passed against his government.

Also, if Johnson (or anyone, really) violated the Benn Act they could face up to 15 years in prison and be liable for civil penalties for any damages incurred as a result of their crime. Civil penalties could also apply to anyone found to have conspired to aid Johnson in his violation of the law - that includes MPs and special advisers working in Downing Street.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2019, 01:22:28 PM »

My concern is, will those consequences materialize?

If this all amounted to active law-breaking, then, yes. The British political system has its problems, but a lack of a strong State/government distinction is not one of them.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong it would be the ugliest parliamentary confrontation, arguably constitutional crisis, since Home Rule in 1914 - and this time without a World War to intervene and stop it (well, I hope!) - but Johnson would be unable to sustain a government if he was literally under arrest. Even most pro-No Deal MPs in the Tory Party won't stand for deliberately breaking the law, especially when they could be considered accessories to it.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2019, 02:36:54 AM »

So why does the opposition not want an election? They are that confident they would lose?

I think it's more that an election pre-31 October is a genuine tossup, whereas after 31 October it will be far more difficult for the Tories to win.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2019, 11:59:53 AM »
« Edited: October 01, 2019, 12:10:55 PM by cp »

I keep hearing rumors that BoJo will "do something" to avoid having to follow through on the bill to avoid Brexit, but I feel like I've seen little discussion of what that would actually entail. What are the theories out there about how he executes ignoring it, procedurally?

Raph Hogarth did a twitter thread about all the theories of what that 'something' might be. In short: none of them are going to work.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2019, 02:58:04 AM »


... yes. Those two situations aren't in any way comparable.

Harper prorogued  the Canadian Parliament for a similar amount of time and parliament has been prorogued in the UK as well .


On the other hand having the Queen unilaterally oust the PM is completely unacceptable and this request is only doing good because the opposition has been too scared to call an election and are unable to form a coalition. The queen should not intervene

The Canada situation involved a governor general who felt bound to comply with ministerial advice that was controversial & widely regarded as improper, but it never went to court, so it was never legally ruled to have been improper. In this case, however, the Queen complied with ministerial advice that was so controversial & widely regarded as improper that it did actually go to court this time, & the judiciary ruled it as having been unlawful, so the Canadian & British prorogations aren't comparable.

Moreover, this Humble Address scenario wouldn't be unilateral intervention on the Queen's part; if 326+ MPs were to clearly & formally identify an individual (other than the incumbent PM) in whom a majority of the Commons has confidence, then why should the Queen not invite that individual to form a new government? That's just a straightforward application of constitutional convention right there.


That's 100% different than unilaterally asking the queen to fire a PM. If they cant form a coalition then its their problem

Did you even read the article that you yourself shared? Because that's literally the plan that it discusses.

Also worth noting that the unilateral dismissal of a PM by the monarch('s representative) *has* happened before - Australia in 1975 - and was not only 'perfectly legal' but resulted in the dismissed PM going on to lose in a landslide.

FWIW, I wouldn't spend too much time trying to argue about the opposition's haggling over who would serve as a caretaker PM after a VONC in Johnson. For one thing, it's not a terribly likely scenario (I think Johnson will acquiesce to an extension rather than resign or break the law), and even if it was, all the talk about it now is just posturing. No one needs to commit to anything until the VONC has happened, so everyone figures they should just 'stand firm on principle' for whatever their preferred option happens to be.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2019, 03:42:24 AM »

Yes, the idea of any of the EU-27 vetoing a British extension request is laughable, though it's pretty par for the course given the litany of other pipe dreams Leave supporters have told themselves and everyone else for the past 4 years.

What I find fascinating is how the request for *Hungary* to veto the extension is always brought up. As noted above, the UK has stronger historical and economic ties to smaller, so presumably more persuadable countries, like Malta (other candidates might include Portugal and Poland, though the latter isn't smaller than Hungary). To me, it shows how closely current anti-EU/Leaver thinking is tied up with the populist/authoritarian delirium of the past few years. It's less rooted in older, deeper, and more durable traditions of British politics and diplomacy. That kinda gives me hope Tongue
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2019, 11:15:27 AM »

Not surprisingly.... Johnson's deal is not only rejected by the DUP, but also Labour and SNP. Meaning it's pretty much dead on arrival.

Nevertheless, vote in parliament is scheduled for Saturday.

Not necessarily - the EU could say: Its this Deal or No deal, we will not approve a extension. Then it depends if Remainers call the Bluff.

Wouldn't be much of a bluff by the EU. Their rhetoric, their actions for the past 3 1/2 years, and the obvious logic that a no deal crash out is *precisely* the situation they are trying to avoid by endorsing the deal in the first place all point to it being an empty threat.

In any case, as noted above the EU has said on multiple occasions that they would not be the ones to initiate a no deal outcome. The only people who are proposing the idea that the EU would refuse an extension are right-wing Brexit cheer leading publications like the Spectator. Depressingly, a few gullible mainstream journalists have hopped on the bandwagon this afternoon, so the idea has received more attention than it deserves.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2019, 01:19:10 PM »
« Edited: October 17, 2019, 01:22:22 PM by cp »

Is the deal really that dead? Surely the likes of Kinnock-the-lesser and Caroline Flint in Labout plus some of the Tory-21 give it a reasonable chance?

Indeed, there's a better chance of passage now than there every was for May's attempts. That's mostly due to a tightening up of resolve on the Tory benches, though. There hasn't been an appreciable change of content to affect any of the opposition (Lab/LD/SNP/PC/Ind/ex-Tory Ind/ex-Lab Ind/Green/does CHUK still exist?) votes.

That said, there's enough noise, bluster, bull to slim down the margins to single or low double digits. It could pass by <5 or fail by 20+. No one will know until moments before the Saturday afternoon vote.

Worth noting that everyone whose vote is uncertain will spend the next 40 hours pouring over the legal text of the agreement. All things being equal, doing so has typically raised more fears than it has allayed.

Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2019, 02:26:56 PM »

What is the issue people on the Left have with his plan?



The fact that is ends the UK's membership in the EU is a pretty big problem with it for most people on 'the Left' Tongue (kind of a meaningless term in this context).

From an economic interventionist perspective, the deal removes significant guarantees for labour standards, working conditions, environmental regulations, and corporate accountability that are enshrined in EU law. The deal doesn't specifically repeal them, but it grants carte blanche to a government that would wish to. Moreover, with the exception of Northern Ireland, the deal will result in a new no deal cliff edge in 2021 or 2022 when the transition period runs out provided the UK and the EU haven't concluded a new free trade agreement (which itself would have virtually no 'floor' for ruinous deregulation)

Socially/diplomatically/politically, the deal rips the UK from countless institutions of cultural, social, technological, and educational cooperation that have been built up over decades. Relatedly, participation in cooperation with EU agencies along these lines will become a matter of endless rancour and debate; it gives license to the lunatic fringe of xenophobic jingoism.

Finally, not quite a """left""" objection, but the government is insisting upon passing the deal without any parliamentary scrutiny, nevermind economic impact assessment.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2019, 03:16:17 AM »





Very sceptical of this; there’s 20 anti 2nd ref labour (some may abstain) and still not enough second referendum supporters among the ex Tories.

The numbers would be very tight, and as of writing I think it would probably fail to pass, but that's not the only dynamic at work. There will be multiple opportunities to amend the Withdrawal Act, by the Commons and the Lords, any one of which could produce an amendment that one or another side of the debate find intolerable. An amendment for permanent UK-wide customs union failed only by 2 votes back in April.

There's also the not insignificant matter of the actual confidence of the house. If the DUP voted against the government in a VONC there is no way there would be enough non-Tory (or ex-Tory Independents) votes to avoid a government defeat. Provided the EU granted an extension through to January as requested* there would be an election *after* the deal had passed but *before* it took effect and the UK was no longer a member of the EU.

*There's a non-zero chance the EU will provide a 'counter offer' of an earlier date, which would complicate matters quite a bit. That said, I think the EU will do as little as possible to interject themselves further into the UK's domestic political melodrama, and so will opt for the least controversial step - to grant the extension request as written.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2019, 01:33:27 PM »

Johnson loses second and critical vote 308 to 322

Thank the gods
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2019, 01:44:16 PM »

Johnson claims that if he is defeated on the timetable vote he will pull the agreement and ask for an election.

I don't doubt he would do that, but it's WAY more complicated. He doesn't have the ability to call an election without a good deal of the opposition wishing it to happen. He also doesn't have control over the EU's response to the Burt-Benn Act mandated extension request. Statutorily, Johnson sent a letter asking for an extension to January 31, 2020. If the EU accepts this, an election is viable. If it counteroffers something shorter, an election becomes much more difficult to organize with the time remaining.

As it stands, it seems Johnson will lobby the EU for a shorter extension so he can shanghai the opposition into voting his deal through (on his timetable), lest they risk a no-deal crash out at the end of the shortened extension date. What the EU will do in this position is very uncertain. They want to be rid of this wretched farce, but they also don't want to interject themselves into UK politics any more than they have to. (There also might be a rump of those who hope an election might bring a remainer government to power, but I wouldn't put too much faith on this).

Bottom line: Remain just barely lives to fight another day.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2019, 02:15:21 AM »

Great question! As a Canadian living in the UK I feel particularly well placed to answer this Tongue

Lawn sign use in the UK is basically identical to their use in Canada. There are far fewer actual lawns, of course, but people will put posters in the street facing windows of their flat or appended to the side of the building. The signs are colour coded by party, but vary in content much as they do in Canada - sometimes with faces, sometimes with party leader, sometimes with a slogan.

The rosettes - which are objectively ridiculous, btw - can be worn by anyone canvassing for a party, not just the candidate. In fact, among volunteers it can be something of a treat to be the one who 'gets' the rosette that day. Ordinary voters will wear little buttons if they care a lot, but usually don't.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.