UK Politics: The Overton Defenestration

[mormont]

Only UKIP would describe two of their elected representatives coming to blows as "a rumbustious argument".

[Werthead]

There seems to be confusion on who threw the first punch and if they deliberately left the room to have a punch-up.

Very bizarre.

[The Anti-Targ]

Hmmm, I thought UKIP was all about creating a separate identify from European politics, not emulating it.

[Maltaran]

It's at least providing Corbyn with decent cover for his reshuffle. Diane Abbott as shadow Home Secretary?!

[SeanF]

Bizarrely, UKIP gained a seat off Labour in Hartlepool last night, on 49% of the vote.  Although, that might be a commentary on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership abilities.

[Sophelia]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Bizarrely, UKIP gained a seat off Labour in Hartlepool last night, on 49% of the vote.  Although, that might be a commentary on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership abilities.

Hartlepool voters... in 2002 voted for H'Angus the Monkey as their mayor instead of the Labour candidate.

Hartlepool voted 70% for Brexit (highest in the North East).  A classic one of these post-industrial deprived areas where many people are worried about effects of immigration on already low employment among locals:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/hartlepool-eu-referendum-leave-voters-immigration-jobs

Though, at least in 2011, Hartlepool had very little immigration:

http://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-hartlepool-durham-16825.html

More older people, more people on benefits, more traditional working class, poorer health, lower levels of education.

 

ETA: Yes quite possible that Corbyn's defence of immigrants and saying he would not cap numbers turned the Hartlepool vote against Labour.  Could also be because Corbyn was against Brexit, and Ukip is widely credited with galvanising the Brexit vote favoured by Hartlepool.

[BigFatCoward]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Bizarrely, UKIP gained a seat off Labour in Hartlepool last night, on 49% of the vote.  Although, that might be a commentary on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership abilities.

The people of Hartlepool are the biggest bunch of woolybacked bogtrotters i've ever come across.  The town takes backwards to a whole other level. 

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The people of Hartlepool are the biggest bunch of woolybacked bogtrotters i've ever come across.  The town takes backwards to a whole other level. 

 

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

Well, they do put guacamole on their fish and chips.

But, regardless of what they're like, if Labour can't count on a seat like Hartlepool, they're in a lot of trouble.

[Maltaran]

I don't think you can read too much into local council byelections - if the turnout was over 15% I'll be shocked.

[Hereward]

5 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I don't think you can read too much into local council byelections - if the turnout was over 15% I'll be shocked.

The consider yourself shocked.*

*Though only just.

[SeanF]

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 5:23 PM, Maltaran said:

I don't think you can read too much into local council byelections - if the turnout was over 15% I'll be shocked.

You shouldn't read much into one, or even a dozen.  As you say, they are fought on low turnouts, and affected by local factors.

But, you would generally expect the main Opposition to be gaining ground, and the government to be losing ground.  Labour actually seem to be going backwards. 

Today's ICM poll has the Conservatives leading by 17% overall, and by 50% among voters aged 65+ (who have the best turnout).

[Chaircat Meow]

It is a bit dead in here.

Anybody have any thoughts on the recent High Court ruling? Before the referendum I had assumed Parliament would have to vote again but that it wouldn't have much choice but to rubber stamp the verdict ... And it looks like that is what will happen, so how does the court's decision change things? Does it give anymore scope for hardline remainers to nudge Britain towards joining the EEA?

[Hereward]

I find it deeply ironic for pro-sovereignty types to object to Parliament being the final arbiter, after all the referendum was constitutionally, though not politically, advisory. Of course, if Parliament was to overrule the will of the people, that's a whole new can of worms. I think this makes a new election very likely.

[Chaircat Meow]

33 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I find it deeply ironic for pro-sovereignty types to object to Parliament being the final arbiter, after all the referendum was constitutionally, though not politically, advisory. Of course, if Parliament was to overrule the will of the people, that's a whole new can of worms. I think this makes a new election very likely.

It appears to me that Parliament already voted on the issue when it passed the referendum bill though ... As for the referendum being advisory in a constitutional sense, is that saying any more than Parliament can legislate as it likes? If it is, although this is true in one sense, it isn't really how the constitution operates. Parliament can't really refuse to hold a general election (by altering the relevant election act) if the ruling party is about to lose. Similarly, it shouldn't really be able to refuse to honour the result of a referendum it plainly did not consider advisory (not that I think this is likely to happen).

 

[Hereward]

No, it shouldn't refuse to recognise the referendum result. That would be politically suicidal and constitutionally questionable. But it seems to me equally bizarre that the sovereign parliament should have no say in the deal that is negotiated. After all, Brexit doesn't really mean Brexit, except in the broadest terms. No-one was asked what kind of Brexit they wanted. That's what makes me think there will be an early election.

[mormont]

The coverage in tomorrow's press appears moderate and thoughtful.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

TBF, and I can't believe I am saying that. They kinda have a (poorly worded) point. 

The better worded argument would look like this, the majority of the people of the UK gave May a mandate to trigger article 50. The Johnsonesque pipe dream of a sweetheart deal involving free access to the single market, without accepting free movement is not going to materialize. Bringing Westminster back into this mess, could potentially postpone Brexit indefinitely (and thus practically void the referendum), because there appears to be some stiffer opposition to a Brexit, and we are back to the Johnsonesque pipedream. 

 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It appears to me that Parliament already voted on the issue when it passed the referendum bill though ...

I think you could argue Parliament implicitly agreed to trigger Article 50 if Leave won, but they didn't make any commitment to a timetable or the how the process would be conducted. If I remember correctly the closest the Government at the time got to a timetable was Cameron suggesting he'd trigger Article 50 immediately after the Referendum and clearly that's already been ignored.

No-one was asked what kind of Brexit they wanted. That's what makes me think there will be an early election.

Looking at the polls I'd think May would be glad of an excuse to hold a referendum while most of the opposition parties (at least in England) are in disarray. I suppose there are some risks to the Tories, if Brexit becomes the main election issue then that could boost other parties in areas that voted Remain, while UKIP could try to portray themselves as the true defenders of Brexit in other areas. The upcoming by-election Zach Goldsmith caused might give an early indication of how a Tory Leaver would do in an area that backed Remain.

[The Anti-Targ]

So I've heard bits and pieces about the court decision, so I have come here to check my understanding.

Has the high court said parliament must vote to invoke Art 50, or has it said that parliament must vote on a Brexit deal before invoking article 50?

If the latter, then it seems a bit catch 22-ish because the EU has said no negotiation until article 50 is invoked. Which would mean a stalemate and Britain being unable to actually proceed with leaving.

The EU position of demanding Article 50 be invoked makes sense. It's one thing for Brexit to lead to a bunch of other countries deciding to article 50 themselves out of the EU. But if (hypothetically) Britain negotiated an exit package without invoking article 50, and then banks the hypothetical gains and decides not to invoke article 50 and stay in the EU then it would cause way worse problems for the EU.

If the court just said Parliament must vote to invoke article 50, then I don't see a real problem aside from the March 2017 starting gun being a little bit delayed, but that is no biggie in the grand scheme of things I would think.

Unless you think there is a majority of remainers currently in parliament and enough of them would ignore the referendum and vote an article 50 bill down. There are a lot of remain MPs in seats that voted remain, and who would be forgiven by their constituents for going against the referendum result. Remain MPs could also (claim to) take the pulse of their electorate and say that after people realised that Johnson and co sold them a false dream "most" of their constituents feel the referendum was conducted under false pretences and thus no longer holds any politically binding validity, which means MPs can vote their conscience rather than vote according to the outcome of the referendum. It could be risky to go against the referendum result, but I think it could be possible for Labour at least to spin things to prevent voter backlash. I doubt the same could be said for the Tories though.

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

The coverage in tomorrow's press appears moderate and thoughtful.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg

 

Ah gotta love trying to drag the courts down the path of politicisation. I'm assuming that the UK courts are, like the Australian ones, still pretty good at keeping their eye on the law regardless of personal beliefs? Its not like this is the final say either, I saw its being bounced up to the Supreme Court (skipping over one level too) who have cleared time for hear it faster than normal and will do so before the full 11 judge bench. I'd say that's taking it appropriately seriously.