Jump to content

UK Politics: Post-May Edition


mormont

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Sidious said:

Brown presided over the economy during one of the worst financial crises in recent history, he sold off gold reserves at record low prices and overspent to a huge degree which led to austerity measures being implemented in the first place, is backing up what has been common knowledge for nearly a decade nessescary?, I've never said Cameron isn't a flawed leader but I believe him to be far less of one than Brown was.

Oh good grief.

"Labour overspending" had absolutely nothing to do with the Global Financial Crisis. It was thirty years' worth of economic deregulation and neoliberalism. When the economy collapses, as it did during the GFC, the Government essentially has to run massive deficits - which in the case of the UK, it could afford to do so because the UK has its own currency (and check the bond markets from 2008-2010 - the markets were basically begging for more borrowing). Austerity was nothing more than sadism.

Edit - see the UK's historical debt level graph: http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/06/uk-debt-gdp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

May's most powerful critic in the party right now is Ruth Davidson, but she will be balancing her principled stance against the DUP against the fact that her 13 MPs might lose their seats to either Labour or the SNP if another election is held. Her leverage might be better deployed in keeping the DUP's more toxic aspects at bay from Westminster by making it clear - as she already has - that she has her finger on the trigger and can essentially collapse this government at will.

The extent to which those are Ruth Davidson's MPs and not Theresa May's is a key question, though. (Politically, if not formally.)

Quote

 Labour have also identified at least 13 seats they could have taken but didn't put any effort into: they've actually said they miscalculated by focusing Corbyn in safe seats rather than marginals, which turned out to be unnecessary.

It's worth noting that at least some of those marginal candidates asked that Corbyn be kept away because they thought his presence would hurt their chances. In some constituencies this may be true. Still, it was a strange tactic to have Corbyn appear so often in safe seats: it was widely speculated that this was an attempt to increase the popular vote to mitigate his defeat.

Quote

They've already mapped out those seats they can take which wouldn't give them a majority, but would push them into a working coalition territory with the LibDems and SNP (the latter more likely now because the SNP mandate for Indy Ref 2 has been damaged).

I think there's a certain blitheness about this rainbow-coalition idea in England. It fails to take into account the deep, visceral anger towards the SNP in Scottish Labour and even among Scottish Liberal Democrats. Hell, I've even seen English Labour voters bitterly denouncing the SNP as 'Tartan Tories' in recent days. The idea of going into coalition with the SNP will face significant opposition in the Labour party, particularly if the SNP demand a high price (and why wouldn't they?)

By the same token, any coalition with more than two parties in the UK parliament, outside of wartime, is unprecedented and it would be a massive undertaking trying to make everyone happy. It just doesn't seem viable to me that this could work, much as I like the idea in principle. If Labour are going to take power I think they need to get enough MPs to do it with the support of the Lib Dems alone.

1 hour ago, Lord Sidious said:

Brown presided over the economy during one of the worst financial crises in recent history, he sold off gold reserves at record low prices and overspent to a huge degree which led to austerity measures being implemented in the first place, is backing up what has been common knowledge for nearly a decade nessescary?

Well, first, this is an opinion, not knowledge. Second, the claim you need to back up is that this was worse than the chain of events that has followed from Cameron's incompetence: Brexit, May, the election, and so on. You still haven't produced any argument as to why you believe this is so: you have only repeated that you do believe this.

Quote

Cameron's handling of the referendum campaign is a matter of opinion

But the opinion that it was an incompetent failure is, if anything, more widely held than the opinion you refer to above as 'common knowledge', so by your own standards, it is just as valid.

Quote

where he did fall short was the renegotiations with the EU before the referendum was called.

Indeed. He raised expectations and failed to deliver them. Call that exhibit E.

Quote

The same could be argued that you believe things that you wish to

No, I've laid out my arguments: Cameron's incompetence is worse because it led to Brexit, May and the election, and Cameron was incompetent in that he conceded the referendum when he shouldn't have, held it too early, didn't prepare and ran a bad campaign. Each mistake leads to the next, all underlaid with the fatal flaw of arrogantly believing he would win without needing to make much effort. Yes, these are my beliefs: I have laid out why I believe them. You have not done the same. We're not even having an argument here, just repeating our positions, because there's largely only one set of points being made. I agree there's no point in that.

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

There's a Yougov poll I just saw on Twitter which asked if May resigns, would these people be good or bad leaders, with 6 different big name Tories. Davidson is the only one who has a net positive score (although admittedly that's only 20-15, she also has by far the largest number of don't knows)

Proving the point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

So, out of curiosity, who do you think would win if there was an election tomorrow; Boris or Corbyn? I'd like to think Corbyn could keep the momentum going and capitalise on the mess the Tories have made, but I have a feeling it'd be another hung parliament. It'd be a lot closer than the last one, but I'm not convinced Corbyn could pull it all the way up to 326.

I think Corbyn definitely seems to have the advantage at the moment, he might still be a bit short in terms of seats but I think he has better prospects for getting support from other parties. I think Mormont is right that a formal coalition with the SNP seems unlikely (I don't think either party would want that), but the SNP are hardly going to hand power to a Tory government. The Tories and the media (and a few Labour MPs) have given their best shot at defaming Corbyn and it seems to have been ineffective. Voters don't like parties that appear weak and the Tories look weak at the moment, as well as risking further losses from Labour they're relying on the Lib Dems not making a comeback in their old stronghold in the South West and the SNP not fighting a better campaign and reversing some of their recent losses.

On the other hand, the Tories might not fight such a horrendous election campaign the second time round, if they could avoid producing a manifesto their own voters hate and had a leader who actually turned up then they might make a bit of a recovery.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

As William says, she was talked out of going because of the chaos it would bring. Also, May called the election in part to get a personal mandate. Another Tory leader taking over as PM without a personal election would simply resurrect that problem.

There's also the question about whether all the potential candidates would want to become PM at such a time. They might if they feel it is their only shot at power, but they'd be taking over an unstable government and facing a horrendous challenge in the form of the Brexit negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Michael Gove is back.

May's cabinet largely the same so far. Few changes though, like Liz Truss,  who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Andrea Leadsom becoming Leader of the House 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is May really going to try and ride this one out?

Seems crazy that after calling an election to reinforce your power and then buggering it up you'd have the guts to stay on. Really nobody won big in the election but her position certainly seems a lot weaker after failing to gain anything from it. I'd imagine simply the fact i went so wrong for her will surely weaken her during any Brexit negotiations?

Regardless of how the public view the Conservatives, or Brexit, it must surely be bad to have a politician who so drastically misread the political climate be taking the lead in such important negotiations? We need someone who will at least have an ounce of respect from the rest of the parties involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original link courtesy of @Nasty LongRider; sorry, quoting across threads is beyond me on the phone

 

Trump wants to cancel his state visit to the UK... Well, postpone it until gets welcomed with ticker-tape, not protests; which is the same thing. I must admit, I didn't know he was capable of that level of self-awareness!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold?CMP=twt_gu

ETA: I wonder if that was before or after his spat with Sadiq Khan, and relevant or not in his completely ignoring the election result.

Or if this had anything to do with it from Friday night (possibly NSFW)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB6Os3CXcAA6oGu.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Labour can't rely on us trying to shovel shit down the throats of our core voters next time though.

True, but then the Tories won't start the next election 25% in front. Meanwhile, Labour get to portray Theresa May as another Ted Heath in the way that Corbyn used to get portrayed as another Michael Foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's time for many of us to admit we were wrong.

I've been critical of the PLP in the past. It felt like they weren't giving their democratically elected leader a chance, and they didn't care at all about the views of their members, or how a divided Labour party would look to the public.

But I have to hold my hands up and say to them - well done. Not only did their constant negativity set Corbyn up as the anti-establishment candidate, but they managed to set the bar so low that coming 2nd can be sold as a win.

Chapeau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

True, but then the Tories won't start the next election 25% in front. Meanwhile, Labour get to portray Theresa May as another Ted Heath in the way that Corbyn used to get portrayed as another Michael Foot.

That did us no good anyway. If anything that helped Corbyn because it lulled us into a false sense of security. Moreover, May won't be the PM when the next election takes place. Labour will likely have to ready the attack lines for Boris or Davis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Slick Mongoose said:

It's time for many of us to admit we were wrong.

I've been critical of the PLP in the past. It felt like they weren't giving their democratically elected leader a chance, and they didn't care at all about the views of their members, or how a divided Labour party would look to the public.

But I have to hold my hands up and say to them - well done. Not only did their constant negativity set Corbyn up as the anti-establishment candidate, but they managed to set the bar so low that coming 2nd can be sold as a win.

Chapeau.

v. amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

Neither of those would be particularly difficult 

I'm not too sure about that with Johnson. He's got a lot of obvious failings but they're kind of out in the open so I'm not too sure how effective pointing them out are plus people seem to like him for some reason. I think he'd probably do better than May anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lordsteve666 said:

Is May really going to try and ride this one out?

Seems crazy that after calling an election to reinforce your power and then buggering it up you'd have the guts to stay on. Really nobody won big in the election but her position certainly seems a lot weaker after failing to gain anything from it. I'd imagine simply the fact i went so wrong for her will surely weaken her during any Brexit negotiations?

Regardless of how the public view the Conservatives, or Brexit, it must surely be bad to have a politician who so drastically misread the political climate be taking the lead in such important negotiations? We need someone who will at least have an ounce of respect from the rest of the parties involved.

If it was down to her, I imagine she would have gone already. She's being made to carry the can. 

As for weakening her in the negotiations, and wanting someone else to lead them, there's no point. The deal is going to be whatever the EU tells us it is.  It doesn't really matter now who leads them for the UK. If she had won, she could perhaps have walked away and survived. Now, that's not an option. If the deal is both ruinously expensive and tantamount to staying in the EU but without any kind of influence, as it will be, she can be finished off and they'll hope to salvage at least something in the inevitable electoral bloodbath that follows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

Neither of those would be particularly difficult 

 

51 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I'm not too sure about that with Johnson. He's got a lot of obvious failings but they're kind of out in the open so I'm not too sure how effective pointing them out are plus people seem to like him for some reason. I think he'd probably do better than May anyway.

Isn't Johnson a bit Trumpish in a number of respects (but not Trumpish in other respects)? If Labour thinks it can handle Johnson, then it would definitely need to take some lessons in how the US Democrats failed to handle Trump. Corbyn being the Sanders equivalent who as leader actually delivered a decent national election outcome for his party is probably a good start in learning what TO do to counter a Johnson/Trump personality. But they also need to learn what not to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hereward said:

If it was down to her, I imagine she would have gone already. She's being made to carry the can. 

As for weakening her in the negotiations, and wanting someone else to lead them, there's no point. The deal is going to be whatever the EU tells us it is.  It doesn't really matter now who leads them for the UK. If she had won, she could perhaps have walked away and survived. Now, that's not an option. If the deal is both ruinously expensive and tantamount to staying in the EU but without any kind of influence, as it will be, she can be finished off and they'll hope to salvage at least something in the inevitable electoral bloodbath that follows.

Switzerland doesn't seem to be too badly off, and that is more or less its situation. The UK and Switzerland are very different countries, to be sure, but if they can manage so can Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switzerland pays into the EU budget, has to accept free movement of people, and has to abide by EU regulations and laws, but doesn't get a say in what they are. Britain would be in the same situation, but with the additional disadvantages of having to pay a multi-billion pound divorce settlement, and the people who wanted to leave realising that it has kept all the "disadvantages" that the Leavers wanted to end, while sacrificing all the advantages of being a key influencer, with a veto. Can you honestly see the Leavers accepting that, or the Remainers not endlessly rubbing that in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Johnson a bit Trumpish in a number of respects (but not Trumpish in other respects)? If Labour thinks it can handle Johnson, then it would definitely need to take some lessons in how the US Democrats failed to handle Trump. Corbyn being the Sanders equivalent who as leader actually delivered a decent national election outcome for his party is probably a good start in learning what TO do to counter a Johnson/Trump personality. But they also need to learn what not to do.

Johnson, for all his faults, isn't Trump. He's actually quite intelligent and when you lock him in a room with no-one to grandstand to with a word processor and a completely uncontroversial subject, he can, on occasion, turn out somewhat intelligent analysis. He doesn't seem inclined to fuck people over based on a slight from twenty years ago, either (well, maybe).

His biggest problem is that he likes to grandstand and show off in front of people (like Trump) and he likes to bluster and bully people who disagree with him, especially when they out-smart him in interviews. Unlike Trump, he's fairly immune to flattery and doesn't seem to give a shit about what people think about him individually (whilst Trump elevates that above all other concerns), whilst simultaneously trying to come over as a man of the people. He doesn't care about looking foolish, which some mistake for having a common touch.

Johnson's biggest problem, right now, is that he is a reed who bends in the wind to his own benefit and that of his brand. He proved that when it was revealed he'd written two articles for Brexit, one supporting and one leaving, and then made a decision on what to follow based on what was best for his brand. That's a very easy line to attack him on, along with the Bus of Deception and him bottling it when given the chance to step up last year.

Given the current situation I can't see him stepping up to the plate without tarnishing his reputation. He might be goaded into it by people telling him it's his duty etc though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...