Jump to content

UK Politics: Post-May Edition


mormont

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

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.

Trumpoid enough just by that description that there are lessons in the Democrat experience for Labour to learn, if they are willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all getting a bit GOT-ish, where the rich do what they like and everyone who isn't one of them has to suck it up. Let's hope Corbyn isn't as naive as Ned though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours 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 isn't Trump and Corbyn isn't Sanders. There are some superficial similarities but not enough to make the comparison useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mormont said:

 

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.

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.

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

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.

 

Browns incompetence led to a recession and a dip in house prices which, on a personal level was worse, As long as the single market ends up being kept and various financial institutions and big companies still remain in London, thus keeping the money in London, then Brexit, for me is a neutral thing, May won't be PM for much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the outcome I was expecting.

May ran a dreadful campaign. Corbyn ran an excellent one.  Labour maximised its support among younger voters. and the Conservatives' support dipped among middle-aged and older voters.

That said, the Conservatives won (just about) and Labour lost (despite hugely exceeding expectations).  The Conservatives have a duty to get on with governing.

One thing that was certainly vindicated by this election result, was Corbyn's decision to accept the EU referendum result and vote through Article 50.  Labour would surely have done worse if they had fought on a platform of opposing Brexit.  As it is, they kept their Leave supporters, picked up quite a few UKIP supporters, but also got support from some Conservative Remainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Sidious said:

Browns incompetence led to a recession and a dip in house prices which, on a personal level was worse, As long as the single market ends up being kept and various financial institutions and big companies still remain in London, thus keeping the money in London, then Brexit, for me is a neutral thing, May won't be PM for much longer.

You ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say.

As for May, there seems no alternative to her being in charge for at least the beginning of the Brexit negotiations. Given her frankly ham-handed approach to negotiating with the DUP (she's tried and failed to bounce them into an agreement, and made it very obvious that she needs them more than they need her) that's not making me optimistic that she's going to handle Brexit negotiations well. I think Hereward is right: the deal now is going to be whatever the EU say it is.

I certainly hope that this will include some form of single market membership but hope is all we have there. As for those financial institutions, some have already begun moving or preparing to move out of London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen's Speech has been delayed a few days, probably a week (since the Queen is busy for most of next week). This is not the best of starts.

Quote

 

Trumpoid enough just by that description that there are lessons in the Democrat experience for Labour to learn, if they are willing.

 

They already have. Curiously, no-one anywhere is saying, "Smith would have won."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Queen's Speech has been delayed a few days, probably a week (since the Queen is busy for most of next week). This is not the best of starts.

They already have. Curiously, no-one anywhere is saying, "Smith would have won."

Maybe not. But I can assure you that I've seen people saying 'a more centrist candidate would have won'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

 I think Hereward is right: the deal now is going to be whatever the EU say it is.

I think the EU will basically offer us what another country already has - 16 months simply isn't enough time for anything else with real details; whilst a busted flush in charge from our end means that we have absolutley no influence on things from our perspective.

I do think, though, that we'll be offered a range of options; we can have the Swiss / Norwegian deal, the Pacific Islands deal the Canadian deal, or possibly the Australian / NZ deal... or no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I think the EU will basically offer us what another country already has - 16 months simply isn't enough time for anything else with real details; whilst a busted flush in charge from our end means that we have absolutley no influence on things from our perspective.

I do think, though, that we'll be offered a range of options; we can have the Swiss / Norwegian deal, the Pacific Islands deal the Canadian deal, or possibly the Australian / NZ deal... or no deal.

I would think a Norway / Swiss (preferably swiss due to the tighter immigration controls) would be what we were always looking for, as a transitional agreement. Long term I personally wouldn't want that, it still has many of the downsides of EU membership, with not very many upsides. 

My fear is that we end up with such a deal and then never have the hunger to look for anything better, and simply get railroaded into believing this is the best agreement we will ever end up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Maybe not. But I can assure you that I've seen people saying 'a more centrist candidate would have won'.

And when they can name such a candidate (they've had two years to do so), that argument can be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

I think Hereward is right: the deal now is going to be whatever the EU say it is.

I think no deal at all is probably up there as reasonably likely as well.

The EU has an incentive to be somewhat punitive in the deal they want but there's probably a point at which the deal on trade offered isn't attractive enough so you might as well just save the money and not pay the 'divorce' bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

You ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say.

As for May, there seems no alternative to her being in charge for at least the beginning of the Brexit negotiations. Given her frankly ham-handed approach to negotiating with the DUP (she's tried and failed to bounce them into an agreement, and made it very obvious that she needs them more than they need her) that's not making me optimistic that she's going to handle Brexit negotiations well. I think Hereward is right: the deal now is going to be whatever the EU say it is.

I certainly hope that this will include some form of single market membership but hope is all we have there. As for those financial institutions, some have already begun moving or preparing to move out of London.

I'm hoping that we get a decent deal in terms of Brexit now as she she has had her position weakened, and in fairness I'd be in favour of cross party consultation on it, wether I agree with other parties or not, a large number of people voted for them so at the very least a Brexit deal that can be agreed on by the Tories,Labour and the SNP at least would be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

And when they can name such a candidate (they've had two years to do so), that argument can be considered.

I'm not saying whether it's a sound argument or not, but naming a specific candidate isn't really necessary for a hypothetical, which this is. After all, on the other side, you can say that a competent Conservative PM would have won in a landslide, even if you can't actually point to such a being in the Conservative party right now. (I return to my earlier theme of how bloody woeful all the major UK parties are in terms of leadership at such a critical moment.)

That said, there's no doubt that the Labour manifesto (which is largely down to Corbyn) was more popular than many thought it would be and Corbyn himself had a decent campaign. Critically he made the right call on the TV debate, which I think was a turning point. But at the same time, I also believe May screwed up repeatedly - over the debate, over her manifesto, over her non-campaigning and reluctance to meet anyone who might ask her an awkward question, and over calling the election in the first place, which voters punished her for. Never be seen to go to the country for political advantage, is the lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Sidious said:

I'm hoping that we get a decent deal in terms of Brexit now as she she has had her position weakened, and in fairness I'd be in favour of cross party consultation on it, wether I agree with other parties or not, a large number of people voted for them so at the very least a Brexit deal that can be agreed on by the Tories,Labour and the SNP at least would be fair.

If we're talking about fairness and representation then maybe 'we' shouldn't have decided to go ahead with leaving the EU based on 52% of the people who bothered to vote. Because a large number of people voted to not leave, didn't they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Isis said:

If we're talking about fairness and representation then maybe 'we' shouldn't have decided to go ahead with leaving the EU based on 52% of the people who bothered to vote. Because a large number of people voted to not leave, didn't they? 

In the case of Brexit, no, the majority voted to leave, even though the margin was small, however the terms of the deal should be decided by a broader spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Buckethead is a perfectly normal part of our electoral system. It'd be like calling a US election thread 'Republican vindictiveness'.

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...