UK Politics: A Farcical Aquatic Ceremony

[polishgenius]

10 minutes ago, Notone said:

Add to that, that both have a rather casual relationship with the truth and facts

Both are politicians, in other words?


About Boris' comments on always being part of Europe- well, we've always known that would be his line. He didn't trumpet it during the campaign but he was never really anti-EU. Joining the campaign for personal reasons makes him an absolute fucker, but it might also make him a better person to negotiate the exit than a genuine anti-EU PM would be, which is a potential silver lining I'm clinging to for now.

[The BlackBear]

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Maybe the next time you guys hold an EU referendum you'll cap the voting age at, say, life expectancy minus 5 years, like 81 - 5 = 76.  So you'd at least have to live long enough to see either set of consequences.

<joke....it's a joke>

On a serious note I'd have liked it to have been open to 16 and 17 year olds.

[williamjm]

45 minutes ago, Maltrouane Fellaini said:

Corbyn is doomed, IMO, he's just too stubborn to admit it yet. If the rumours are true and a shedload of junior shadow ministers resign tomorrow, he may not even have enough loyalists left to appoint replacements for everyone.

In the past it's been suggested that if plotters brought down Corbyn and he didn't stand in the subsequent then his supporters would just end up electing John McDonnell instead who seems to have the same political beliefs but is more willing to do the gritty work of traditional political campaigning. I don't know if that's still likely to happen or if he's been equally tarnished by recent events? I do know McDonnell's stated today that he's never going to stand for leader, which is exactly the sort of thing people say before standing to lead a party.

[A Prince of Dorne]

Good for UK wanting to manage its own affairs without needing permission from EU. Bravo

[Hello World]

Make it a two-thirds majority for exit and the vote doesn't count unless 95% of those eligible voted including 16-17 year olds. Only then can you say that the people decided. As it stands, politicians should ignore the vote. Democracy is a joke, either way. 

[Slick Mongoose]

Corbyn HQ:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl4GSPyXEAAIcOu.jpg:large

 

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 hours ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

None of that disguises the fact that Corbyn's leadership has been shambolic, ineffectual, and uninspiring, that he has made no progress on opposing austerity or on any other agenda since taking office, that he enjoys extremely poor support among voters, or that his supporters have spent their time undermining anyone in the Shadow Cabinet they even think is a Blairite just as much as the other way around, that the party under his leadership has therefore spent all its time on internal political jostling and that it was his job as leader to sort this out instead of quietly encouraging it.

The man is an unmitigated disaster as leader, and there are no excuses for that. He means well, but he's terrible at his job. I don't know how the Labour party rank and file will react if he's defenestrated, but I'm pretty sure voters in general will be thinking 'about time'.

Since Corbyn took over, Labour has had one very good by-election result (albeit in a safe seat), a decent if mixed set of local council results in England, a terrible set of local council results in Scotland (hardly Corbyn's fault, of course), a massive surge in membership, a return of lost affiliate organisations, and a run of mediocre but hardly terrible poll ratings. None of that suggests Corbyn was unelectable from Day One, as his opponents have suggested, or that having a "we stand for austerity... but nicer" leader like the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party seem to want would have resulted in anything better.

Corbyn's fault was to think that the Right of the Party (or their mouthpieces in the media) would ever actually let him lead. God forbid that a left-wing guy actually try to lead the Labour Party.

[The Marquis de Leech]

18 hours ago, Hereward said:

I think this is a mistaken characterisation. The Blairites are a dead duck, and have never been very good at vicious internecine warfare anyway. If Corbyn is overthrown, it'll be the English wing of the Brownites that will end him. The ones that hate him most are the inheritors of the Callaghan/Healy wing: mainly from the West Midlands, Manchester and South Yorkshire, more economically left wing than the Blairites, more socially conservative, and intensely patriotic. They reflect the (white) working class Labour support which Corbyn does not.

The Callaghan/Healey wing is basically extinct within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Yes, Corbyn is essentially a Bennite, but his main opposition comes from the careerists who seem to think that being a Nicer Tory Party is the way to get ahead. I mean, they were going after him before he was even elected, rather than trying to articulate their own positions, to the point where there was open talk of a coup months before the actual leadership election and suggestions that the leadership election be cancelled because Corbyn looked like he might win. 

[Jo498]

The treatment of Corbyn is only one of the most obvious indication that shows whose fault the whole mess is: politicians and parties formally known as "social democrats" or their analogues (and with some stretching, I'd count the US democrats in as well). They had moved so far to the "center" that someone like Corbyn is seen as an extreme leftist who cannot be accepted in polite society.

With the "whole mess" I do not only mean Brexit, but most of the European mess and the rise of Trump. The formerly social democratic parties threw large parts of their clientele (working and lower employee class) under the bus, focussed on educated academics (who back then in the 1990s usually had decent jobs without danger of outsourcing or precarization) and wanted to turn big wheels with the "new information economy", finance, etc.

Behind they left ruined infrastructure, even more tax cuts for the rich and in 2008/9 doled out taxpayer money for banksters too big to fail. And now they wonder why people fall prey to all kinds of ressentiment-appealing populists.

It's horrible, because while they deserve every bit of our scorn, those parties are unfortunately still on of the best bets to get somehow out of this mess...

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

The treatment of Corbyn is only one of the most obvious indication that shows whose fault the whole mess is: politicians and parties formally known as "social democrats" or their analogues (and with some stretching, I'd count the US democrats in as well). They had moved so far to the "center" that someone like Corbyn is seen as an extreme leftist who cannot be accepted in polite society.

I agree so much. Corbyn's economic views would have been unexceptional within the party before the 1990s, and indeed once upon a time would have been perfectly mainstream (not his views on social issues or defence and international relations though). The sheer hysteria and hand-wringing from The Guardian "Left", with its sneering contempt for anyone outside their little bubble really beggars belief.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Since Corbyn took over, Labour has had one very good by-election result (albeit in a safe seat), a decent if mixed set of local council results in England, a terrible set of local council results in Scotland (hardly Corbyn's fault, of course), a massive surge in membership, a return of lost affiliate organisations, and a run of mediocre but hardly terrible poll ratings. None of that suggests Corbyn was unelectable from Day One, as his opponents have suggested, or that having a "we stand for austerity... but nicer" leader like the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party seem to want would have resulted in anything better.

Corbyn's fault was to think that the Right of the Party (or their mouthpieces in the media) would ever actually let him lead. God forbid that a left-wing guy actually try to lead the Labour Party.

You can't give credit to Corbyn for every success (modest as they are) and excuse him from every failure, and present that as an argument in his favour. That's just not how leadership actually works.

Corbyn's problem is not his politics. Corbyn's problem is that his politics were the only reason he got elected. What he lacked, and still lacks, is leadership skills.

A leader's job is to lead: to build trust, to unify his party behind common goals, to resolve problems, to successfully communicate a consistent message both within the party and to the outside world, to organise, and to accept responsibility. Corbyn's troubles arise from a demonstrated inability to do these things to the standard required. Yes, he has faced obstacles in each case: overcoming those obstacles is where you demonstrate leadership. If he had done that, if he had these skills, his politics would not matter. As it stands, he has nothing going for him but an ideology that many in the party find congenial. And that is not good enough.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

You can't give credit to Corbyn for every success (modest as they are) and excuse him from every failure, and present that as an argument in his favour. That's just not how leadership actually works.

Corbyn's problem is not his politics. Corbyn's problem is that his politics were the only reason he got elected. What he lacked, and still lacks, is leadership skills.

A leader's job is to lead: to build trust, to unify his party behind common goals, to resolve problems, to successfully communicate a consistent message both within the party and to the outside world, to organise, and to accept responsibility. Corbyn's troubles arise from a demonstrated inability to do these things to the standard required. Yes, he has faced obstacles in each case: overcoming those obstacles is where you demonstrate leadership. If he had done that, if he had these skills, his politics would not matter. As it stands, he has nothing going for him but an ideology that many in the party find congenial. And that is not good enough.

How is one supposed to build trust with people who have been acting in complete bad faith since before he became leader? It wasn't as if he suddenly decided to launch a de-selection purge, or has been caught plotting with Militant Tendency.

You're basically bashing him for failing to achieve the impossible (i.e. convincing people who hate his guts and who have been plotting his downfall since forever to actually let him do his job).

Incidentally, full credit to Andy Burnham here. He obviously differs with Corbyn on issues, but he realises that a revolt against the membership is a terrible idea.

[Slick Mongoose]

From Boris's Telegraph column:

Quote

As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

 

Of course the BDI have denied this.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

How is one supposed to build trust with people who have been acting in complete bad faith since before he became leader?

Answering that question demonstrates leadership skills: that's my point. It's not as if no previous party leader has ever had to face this problem.
In fact, pretty much every party leader has to solve it. Being able to lead only people who are happy to be led by you is not a demonstration of leadership.

2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

It wasn't as if he suddenly decided to launch a de-selection purge, or has been caught plotting with Militant Tendency.

No? There have been rather a lot of stories about Corbyn allies plotting exactly that.

2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You're basically bashing him for failing to achieve the impossible (i.e. convincing people who hate his guts and who have been plotting his downfall since forever to actually let him do his job).

I'm pointing out that he has failed to achieve the basic tasks of a party leader.

This is a man who last week literally said 'if people vote Leave, don't blame me'. 'Don't blame me'. Is that leadership?

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

How is one supposed to build trust with people who have been acting in complete bad faith since before he became leader? It wasn't as if he suddenly decided to launch a de-selection purge, or has been caught plotting with Militant Tendency.

You're basically bashing him for failing to achieve the impossible (i.e. convincing people who hate his guts and who have been plotting his downfall since forever to actually let him do his job).

Incidentally, full credit to Andy Burnham here. He obviously differs with Corbyn on issues, but he realises that a revolt against the membership is a terrible idea.

I don't know how Labour resolve this problem.  Corbyn's economic views are (as you say) not at all unpopular with the general public.  Nor are his views on the EU, although his views on issues like immigration and defence certainly are.

The Blairites' views on the EU and immigration are unpopular with the general public.  Their views on economic matters are certainly popular with Conservative voters in the Stockbroker Belt, and the M3 and M4 corridors, who voted heavily for Remain, but I can't see Labour picking up many constituencies there.

[Sir Thursday]

I'm sure at least some of Corbyn's issues with rebellion within the Labour party can probably be traced to his own rebellions when he was a back-bencher. Is it any surprise that there are those who don't want to toe the party line when their leader is someone who was notorious for doing exactly that?

To get them out of this mess, they need to replace Corbyn with someone who can articulate the economic views that resonate with the general public, but has the political savvy to keep the PLP onside. I don't think that's impossible, I just think it takes the right person (and Corbyn isn't it). Does any such person exist? I'm not familiar enough with the personalities within the Party to judge - anyone have any ideas?

ST

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

The treatment of Corbyn is only one of the most obvious indication that shows whose fault the whole mess is: politicians and parties formally known as "social democrats" or their analogues (and with some stretching, I'd count the US democrats in as well). They had moved so far to the "center" that someone like Corbyn is seen as an extreme leftist who cannot be accepted in polite society.

With the "whole mess" I do not only mean Brexit, but most of the European mess and the rise of Trump. The formerly social democratic parties threw large parts of their clientele (working and lower employee class) under the bus, focussed on educated academics (who back then in the 1990s usually had decent jobs without danger of outsourcing or precarization) and wanted to turn big wheels with the "new information economy", finance, etc.

Behind they left ruined infrastructure, even more tax cuts for the rich and in 2008/9 doled out taxpayer money for banksters too big to fail. And now they wonder why people fall prey to all kinds of ressentiment-appealing populists.

It's horrible, because while they deserve every bit of our scorn, those parties are unfortunately still on of the best bets to get somehow out of this mess...

I agree with you about the situation, but I disagree about the last sentence. Maybe I'm biased by the ones I know best and maybe in some countries they're not as bad, but my impression is that the over the past few decades, the "social democrat" parties have been hopelessly corrupted to the point where it is unlikely that they will ever try to significantly alter the current system. They still differ from their mainstream right-wing counter parts in a variety of ways, but they are the same in quite a few economic tenets which are at the heart of the problem. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of their members are either so removed from the people that they simply don't understand why anyone is upset or are pretending not to understand for political and propaganda purposes. This is not specific to the UK so I'll make a separate thread about it, but I just don't see a solution to the mess coming out of Labour party or any of its counterparts in other countries.

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

I agree with you about the situation, but I disagree about the last sentence. Maybe I'm biased by the ones I know best and maybe in some countries they're not as bad, but my impression is that the over the past few decades, the "social democrat" parties have been hopelessly corrupted to the point where it is unlikely that they will ever try to significantly alter the current system. They still differ from their mainstream right-wing counter parts in a variety of ways, but they are the same in quite a few economic tenets which are at the heart of the problem. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of their members are either so removed from the people that they simply don't understand why anyone is upset or are pretending not to understand for political and propaganda purposes. This is not specific to the UK so I'll make a separate thread about it, but I just don't see a solution to the mess coming out of Labour party or any of its counterparts in other countries.

In countries with proportional representation, it might be possible to get better prospects elected. Sadly, the UK doesn't have proportional representation, so Jo's point still stands. Of the major parties of the UK, only Labor even has a chance of reforming into a solution (and they'd need to reform hard, and the chance is rather small.)

[Slick Mongoose]

The pound hits a 30 year low.

FTSE 250 drops 4%

Boris says everything is fine.

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, England's Finest said:

The pound hits a 30 year low.

FTSE 250 drops 4%

Boris says everything is fine.

The FTSE 250 has dropped sharply, but is still only back to where it was in March.