UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[SeanF]

Iain Duncan Smith: Prime Minister has a 'low opinion of the British people'

The Tories seem to be the only ones actually putting the effort into the whole 'Brexit Civil War Drama' up your game Labour & SNP.

I think that there just isn't the same level of interest among the 50% who don't vote Conservative or UKIP as there is among the 50% who do.

I also think that there is the potential for this campaign to turn very bitter within the Conservative Party.

[HexMachina]

It's also been reported that Cameron will face a leadership challenge regardless of the outcome of the referendum

[polishgenius]

20 hours ago, Maltaran said:

"Upper middle class ", maybe? The kind of people who shop at Waitrose?

There's a lot of City-finance types, coz it's the nicest town in the commuter belt, at least on the North side. Also loads of footballers.

I think part of the mental disconnect is that there's a lot of really swanky outskirts that count as St Albans in at least some official senses, including for voting, but are separate villages really. Mind you, I know a few people from those places too and they're not that posh even when they're loaded, so...

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

It's also been reported that Cameron will face a leadership challenge regardless of the outcome of the referendum

He almost kinda has to really. If Boris (or whoever, but if it's going to be feasible it's going to be Boris) strikes now, he can try to take advantage of the chaos in the party even if he 'loses' the referendum. If he waits for Cameron to set the time closer to 2020, he'll have more time to reorganise his troops and maneuver his chosen successor into pole position. It helps that Osborne's looking especially bad right now and you don't want to give him years of time to rehab his image if you can afford it.

The one big flaw in his strategy right now: by choosing to support 'Out', he's willingly associated himself with this drongo.

 

4 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

Iain Duncan Smith: Prime Minister has a 'low opinion of the British people'

 

The Tories seem to be the only ones actually putting the effort into the whole 'Brexit Civil War Drama' up your game Labour & SNP.

 

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

Iain Duncan Smith: Prime Minister has a 'low opinion of the British people'

The Tories seem to be the only ones actually putting the effort into the whole 'Brexit Civil War Drama' up your game Labour & SNP.

I imagine the politicians from the other parties are probably sitting around eating popcorn while enjoying the sight of the Tories fighting each other.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

It's also been reported that Cameron will face a leadership challenge regardless of the outcome of the referendum

I can imagine so. If the country rejects Brexit, there are probably too many Tories who want it for them to stand for a PM who campaigned to stay. If the country votes for Brexit, then clearly cameron is out of touch with the national mood and thus is a liability.

Is this the right place to talk about the Pretty Curious debacle? I guess it's not really political because it's a private entity that ran the show, but it's kind of a political issue, i.e. gender politics.

I just don't know what EDF energy was thinking right from the start of this. They want to promote STEM to girls, then go all in. If they just want to promote STEM to students in general then do that. If the educational concern they were trying to address was the high number of girls who don't make a career in science because they think they aren't smart enough then having a science competition at all is a stupid idea. If they make it girls only it sends the message that girls can't compete with boys in science and so they need their own special competition where a girl is guaranteed to win. If they make it open to everyone, then if a boy wins, even though the competition was especially promoted for girls, then it also sends the message that boys are smarter / better at science.

Surely what you do is raise confidence among the young generation through role models. Have women who are highly successful in their scientific field do school roadshows and be part of promotional material with the message that you are smart enough and if you enjoy science keep doing it. 

If it's true that a substantial minority of girls in the UK who enjoy science don't stay in science because they don't think they're smart enough, then that's quite a worry. How are these girls getting that sort of message in this day and age?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

As a Woman who works for a large Global Company, who joined at 16 as an Engineering apprentice.  During my Apprenticeship I and the other Girls (lets face it at that age we where more Girls than Adults) where often asked to attend Careers events in local schools and we where often interviewed generally publishing Women in Engineering.  I can tell you that a lot of effort went into encouraging girls to think about engineering and sciences.

I can also tell you its not that Girls think they can't do it or are not clever enough to do it, Its more on the lines of peer pressure.  They don't want to choose these careers because of what their friends may think about their choice.

They also worry about there not being other girls with them if they do go into engineering and that they will have no female friends in their job.  They don't want to be surrounded by Men only, or mostly men.

These are big concerns they have,  it was my experience that they used the Not clever enough, or brain not wired that way, as an excuse, when they really did have an interest but was reluctant to take it because of their fear of doing something women aren't supposed to do.

[Werthead]

If the Prime Minister wins and gets his way, I can't see a serious leadership challenge being mounted. I can see Cameron being vulnerable if the deal is later shot down in the EU (somehow) or if the EU pushes for more reform and integration beyond what Cameron has agreed to, but I don't see that being very likely. Cameron might even calculate he can call an early general election as a show of confidence in his government and the referendum outcome, with the attendant risks for deselection and prominent pro-Brexiters losing their jobs.

If, as Johnson and the Brexiters are saying, "Out is out," then it follows that "In is in" and a remain vote will have to be fully respected (barring any major EU catastrophes) for a good generation or two afterwards. Johnson I think will follow through on that, but I can see others continuing to grumble.

More interesting would be the fate of UKIP if the very reason for their existence suddenly evaporates.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

There was a poll on a social media app used by students in my area and, of 500 participants, 89% were in favour of staying. I would expect most university students to be in favour of staying, but I was surprised how large the margin was (not a very reliable source though, admittedly).

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I thought we had fixed 5 year terms now so can't have an early election, or was that only during the coalition?

as for respecting the outcome of the referendum, that is a lot easier to do if the result is not close.  If Stay gets just 51% then I can see us doing this again in another 10-20 years.  I think it will also be easier to push for another later vote if Scotland has another try at independence.

Part of me has been in favor of having the referendum despite fears it may result in us leaving, in the hope that it would finally settle the debate, and stop wasting so much time bickering about it.    - This is the optimistic, unrealistic and somewhat naive part of me.

[The BlackBear]

7 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

I thought we had fixed 5 year terms now so can't have an early election, or was that only during the coalition?

I was under the impression the Conservatives were looking to repeal that.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

If the Prime Minister wins and gets his way, I can't see a serious leadership challenge being mounted. I can see Cameron being vulnerable if the deal is later shot down in the EU (somehow) or if the EU pushes for more reform and integration beyond what Cameron has agreed to, but I don't see that being very likely. Cameron might even calculate he can call an early general election as a show of confidence in his government and the referendum outcome, with the attendant risks for deselection and prominent pro-Brexiters losing their jobs.

If, as Johnson and the Brexiters are saying, "Out is out," then it follows that "In is in" and a remain vote will have to be fully respected (barring any major EU catastrophes) for a good generation or two afterwards. Johnson I think will follow through on that, but I can see others continuing to grumble.

More interesting would be the fate of UKIP if the very reason for their existence suddenly evaporates.

It would depend on the margin of victory.  If it were something like 52/48 for Remain, then it would mean most Conservatives had voted to Leave, which would make Cameron's position tricky.

If Leave wins, then I think UKIP would rapidly fade.

[Werthead]

Quote

It would depend on the margin of victory.  If it were something like 52/48 for Remain, then it would mean most Conservatives had voted to Leave, which would make Cameron's position tricky.

I don't see how that is viable. In the Scottish Referendum, the outcome was 55/44 which was a very narrow (and narrower than expected) win for the government, but hardly a massive win. Yet Cameron did not have to resign then. If Cameron convinces the country of his argument and wins even by a narrow margin, then the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party becomes an irrelevance, certainly for as long as Cameron is remaining as PM (which is only 3-4 years anyway). They can't continue to argue and agitate on the EU having just lost the popular vote.

[Chaircat Meow]

23 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I don't see how that is viable. In the Scottish Referendum, the outcome was 55/44 which was a very narrow (and narrower than expected) win for the government, but hardly a massive win. Yet Cameron did not have to resign then. If Cameron convinces the country of his argument and wins even by a narrow margin, then the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party becomes an irrelevance, certainly for as long as Cameron is remaining as PM (which is only 3-4 years anyway). They can't continue to argue and agitate on the EU having just lost the popular vote.

The difference is that in this case Cameron might be on the wrong side of his own party, even if he won the national vote. This was not the case in Scotland, the Tory vote there was basically 100% for the UK (as you would expect). How viable would it be to have most of your own party ignore your warnings about national security when you're the PM?

 

 

[Werthead]

Quote

The difference is that in this case Cameron might be on the wrong side of his own party, even if he won the national vote. This was not the case in Scotland, the Tory vote there was basically 100% for the UK (as you would expect). How viable would it be to have most of your own party ignore your warnings about national security when you're the PM?

That could be tested in a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. But at the same time could you have a leadership election to remove the PM just after the PM has won the argument in the country? That would have to put in question the ability of the Conservative Party to continue to operate or govern the country if the two camps are so divided and the "larger" part of the Tories had just been proven to be out of step with the public mood.

In fact, the Tory Party has functioned - if at times only just - for twenty years with this argument causing internal dissent. The referendum should give the party the opportunity to test the question and then put it to bed, at least for a prolonged period of time. The fact that Cameron is going anyway relatively soon would, you'd think, remove the impetus to remove him quickly. What would the material outcome be, anyway? Remove Cameron and then do what, go against the public and try to leave the EU anyway? Negotiate a different deal? I'm not sure that's a great idea with a general election four years away and an electorate wanting to see real solid movement on issues like the economy, education and health rather than dicking around with a issue that was supposed to have been settled.

[Chaircat Meow]

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That could be tested in a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. But at the same time could you have a leadership election to remove the PM just after the PM has won the argument in the country? That would have to put in question the ability of the Conservative Party to continue to operate or govern the country if the two camps are so divided and the "larger" part of the Tories had just been proven to be out of step with the public mood.

In fact, the Tory Party has functioned - if at times only just - for twenty years with this argument causing internal dissent. The referendum should give the party the opportunity to test the question and then put it to bed, at least for a prolonged period of time. The fact that Cameron is going anyway relatively soon would, you'd think, remove the impetus to remove him quickly. What would the material outcome be, anyway? Remove Cameron and then do what, go against the public and try to leave the EU anyway? Negotiate a different deal? I'm not sure that's a great idea with a general election four years away and an electorate wanting to see real solid movement on issues like the economy, education and health rather than dicking around with a issue that was supposed to have been settled.

Maybe, but for 18 years Tory leaders have not had to nail their colours to the mast on Europe in the way Cameron has done now. Hague and co got away with sounding anti-Europe but weren't in power so didn't have to do anything about it. With the liberals gone Cameron has to stick his neck out, and maybe it will end badly for him. I think lots of Tories who quite liked him are going to find themselves hating what he has to say now.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I don't see how that is viable. In the Scottish Referendum, the outcome was 55/44 which was a very narrow (and narrower than expected) win for the government, but hardly a massive win. Yet Cameron did not have to resign then. If Cameron convinces the country of his argument and wins even by a narrow margin, then the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party becomes an irrelevance, certainly for as long as Cameron is remaining as PM (which is only 3-4 years anyway). They can't continue to argue and agitate on the EU having just lost the popular vote.

Cameron wasn't running against most of his own party, at the time of the Scottish referendum.

I'm not sure that he's running against the majority of his party now (MPs have broken narrowly for Remain, party members definitely favour Leave).  But, if most Conservative voters support Leave (and we should have a clear idea from both polling, and the breakdown of results by   constituency if they do) I think the Party will definitely want to make a Leave supporters its next Leader. Whether there was a subsequent referendum would depend whether that Leader thought he could win it (rather like the SNP in Scotland).

[Chaircat Meow]

I am surprised at how many Tory MPs have come out for Leave. Thought the numbers would be much lower.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I am surprised at how many Tory MPs have come out for Leave. Thought the numbers would be much lower.

I'd thought it would be 70-80, compared to the actual number of 130-140.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Pebbles said:

I thought we had fixed 5 year terms now so can't have an early election, or was that only during the coalition?

He can call an early election, but he needs 2/3 of MPs to vote for it as opposed to the usual 50%+1

[The BlackBear]

YouGov map of Eurosceptism

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/28/eurosceptic-map-britain/