UK Politics: Austerity has ended - More cuts to come.

[BigFatCoward]

Can anyone see a realistic scenario playing out where we aren't fucked for a generation?  I need something to cling onto. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

15 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone see a realistic scenario playing out where we aren't fucked for a generation?  I need something to cling onto. 

Well maybe the EU will fragment or disolve completly in the near future in which case an early exit could be a plus in the long term. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

45 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If a deal can be struck between the government and the EU, IMHO, it is likely to pass the Commons.  The ERG are a load of piss and wind (how many times have they threatened a leadership contest?) and a lot of Labour MPs seem prepared to abstain, if the alternative is No Deal.  Things may well get harder for the government after that, though, as disgruntled MPs vote against other pieces of legislation.

That would also apply to a newly elected parliament. It all depends on what deal May brings home.

EEA membership would probably have a majority in the house of commons right now (the Soubry faction of the Tories and the vast bulk of the opposition), with anything else it gets trickier. But I am repeating my self here, just check the previous UK politics Brexit thread.

42 minutes ago, mormont said:

Pretty much, yes. But it doesn't matter. As I've noted before, non-Scots who talk about Labour/SNP coalitions tend not to really understand the absolutely visceral antipathy to the SNP among senior Scottish Labour figures. Plenty of them will be urging the Labour leadership to offer the SNP exactly nothing, instead challenging them to support the Labour agenda for free. 

Wouldn't that recquire a coherent Labour policy to support in the first place? I mean outside the Red Unicorn of A Customs Union (but not The Customs Union).

I mean if I were a Brit I'd either be screaming and banging my head against a wall, or sit in a fetal position in a corner crying.

Quote

Corbyn said the UK and EU should negotiate a “permanent customs union”to protect jobs and manufacturing and said May should be able to offer the Commons a deal that could command Labour support.

It'd be really mindboggling, if he actually believes that this idea will be any more acceptable for the EU, than the May's Customs Partnership.

[karaddin]

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone see a realistic scenario playing out where we aren't fucked for a generation?  I need something to cling onto. 

Basically what Wert said last page, it seems like it would require May saving the day. So... Not really no. Not like I'm an expert though, just a concerned bystander wishing someone would slam on the brakes.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone see a realistic scenario playing out where we aren't fucked for a generation?  I need something to cling onto. 

Predicting the future is always hard, but we survived WWII, the loss of the Empire, the industrial conflict and violence of the 1970's and 80's, the Iraq War, and the Great Financial Crash, so I'm fairly sanguine about the future.  It's easy to think one is living in the worst of times, and occasionally that's right, but usually it isn't.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That would also apply to a newly elected parliament. It all depends on what deal May brings home.

EEA membership would probably have a majority in the house of commons right now (the Soubry faction of the Tories and the vast bulk of the opposition), with anything else it gets trickier. But I am repeating my self here, just check the previous UK politics Brexit thread.

Wouldn't that recquire a coherent Labour policy to support in the first place? I mean outside the Red Unicorn of A Customs Union (but not The Customs Union).

I mean if I were a Brit I'd either be screaming and banging my head against a wall, or sit in a fetal position in a corner crying.

It'd be really mindboggling, if he actually believes that this idea will be any more acceptable for the EU, than the May's Customs Partnership.

The Judean People's Front will never submit to the People's Front of Judea!!

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Wolfgang I said:

Well maybe the EU will fragment or disolve completly in the near future in which case an early exit could be a plus in the long term. 

The EU is certainly facing huge problems currently with Poland and Hungary. Maybe it's just the media I consume, but we aren't hearing much about this in the UK, the EU is suddenly being talked about as if it's the very model of stability and strength. I'm not sure whether this is helping us leave though. Generally, a weaker opponent is better, but I think they're worried that a prosperous post Brexit UK could doom the EU. 

Anyway, assuming we survive the coming Brexpocalpse (I probably need to make it clear that's a joke), what about hate crime laws?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/hating-men-crime-eldely-women-sajid-david-misandry

I'm a little confused that this has even come about. When they passed a law to protect gay people from discrimination, it didn't specify it was to protect homosexuals (even though it obviously was), it was against discrimination based on sexual orientation, I pointed this out a lot at the time. People responded there was no way a gay person would ever be prosecuted for discriminating against a straight person- but they were- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7171418.stm and I think most gay rights groups were supportive of the ruling. 

I just don't get why this wouldn't work the same way. Obviously, we all know the law about a hate crime based on gender would mainly be to benefit women, and it would mainly be used to prosecute men. But other hate crime law covers all races, all religions, all sexuality, regardless of social power and levels of crime. If a black person hits me for being white, that's a hate crime, but if a woman hits me for being male, that isn't? 

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/false-promises-brexit-john-major?CMP=fb_gu
Opinion piece from John Major - probably the politician I have the most respect for from the latest 30-odd years (or should that be the least derision?)

[mormont]

Oh hey, don't get it twisted. John Major set the precedent for selling out to get NI Unionist support that Theresa May only followed, remember. He appointed Norman Lamont, one of the worst Chancellors ever. And Michael Howard, for that matter. He privatised the railways. 'Back to Basics'. Cash for questions. Arms to Iraq. All on Major. He was a terrible Prime Minister. That Theresa May and David Cameron have set the bar breathtakingly lower doesn't change the fact that Major was awful. 

[Which Tyler]

I did suggest "least derision".

30-odd years give us Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron & May. IMO, Major is the standout candidate for integrity in that company, the bar really is that low (actually, I might allow integrity for Thatcher, she may have been genuinely opposed to just about everything I value)

[mormont]

51 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I did suggest "least derision".

30-odd years give us Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron & May. IMO, Major is the standout candidate for integrity in that company, the bar really is that low (actually, I might allow integrity for Thatcher, she may have been genuinely opposed to just about everything I value)

For everything they did wrong, there's simply no serious bar that Major can clear that Brown and Blair do not. And Blair and Brown, for all their foreign policy disasters and other flaws, made a serious attempt to improve the lot of the less well off in society.

Major's post-PM life has blurred the reality that as PM he was not only incompetent, but also that he simply did nothing for the poor and vulnerable in society. Don't mistake the fact that he comes across in interviews as more likeable than Blair or Brown for him being more worthy of respect. He is not.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

He might have been incompetent but he did win an Election after becoming PM.  I might be forgetting just how terrible he was but I think he had slightly more charisma than May does.  an exceedingly low bar.

 

How far back do we have to go until we find competent and still respected by today Prime Minister?

[john]

“Illegal war” and “ not even elected” are pretty stiff blows to the respectability of any PM. Major did have an affair in parliament and them led a campaign that exposed the affairs of many of his colleagues so he’s out.  I guess we go back to Attlee or Churchill. Still widely respected, if not universally.

[mormont]

Well, being PM is a bit like being a football manager, in that it inevitably ends badly. Every PM either gets voted out of office or brought down by their own party - or, like Blair, outstays their welcome. So finding one that everyone agrees was good is difficult, because the last memory we have is always of their failures. The best you can hope for is that they do some good along the way. I think Blair and Brown hit that bar. Major does not. 

But if you want to measure past PMs, at least they could guarantee the supply of medicines. 

[mankytoes]

12 hours ago, mormont said:

Oh hey, don't get it twisted. John Major set the precedent for selling out to get NI Unionist support that Theresa May only followed, remember. He appointed Norman Lamont, one of the worst Chancellors ever. And Michael Howard, for that matter. He privatised the railways. 'Back to Basics'. Cash for questions. Arms to Iraq. All on Major. He was a terrible Prime Minister. That Theresa May and David Cameron have set the bar breathtakingly lower doesn't change the fact that Major was awful. 

I've got to say, I don't get this argument. What should the Tories have done after the last election results? Compromising with other parties to achieve a majority in parliament is the normal order of things in most European countries. As someone who wants a more proportional electoral system, I really don't like the culture where any compromise between parties is "selling out". 

[mormont]

11 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I've got to say, I don't get this argument. What should the Tories have done after the last election results?

Well, I'd begin by noting the famous advice when asked for directions: I wouldn't have started from here. The last election was a completely unnecessary exercise in personal political ambition that turned into possibly the biggest political blunder for decades, crippling the government and leaving it at the mercy of a handful of Conservative Eurosceptics.

So what Theresa May should have done, personally, is not hold the election: and what she should have done after it is, resign. But since she has not a single ounce of personal integrity, that did not happen. 

11 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Compromising with other parties to achieve a majority in parliament is the normal order of things in most European countries. As someone who wants a more proportional electoral system, I really don't like the culture where any compromise between parties is "selling out". 

Not sure who this is addressed to. It's not me, because it's not arguing against anything I said.

There's nothing wrong with doing a deal, but there's a great deal wrong with the deal that Theresa May chose to do. It essentially gave the DUP, a terrible, regressive party whose leadership was under investigation for corruption, a veto over government policy and ensured that power-sharing in NI could not be restored except on their terms: and, of course, it created the current impasse over Brexit and the Irish border, because the DUP have a veto over that, too. It has increased tensions in NI and abandoned the UK government's role as a mediator. It has allied her party with a bunch of religious fanatics. It's a vile deal. And to say that this is a vile deal is not to attack the concept of doing deals at all. I'm all in favour of that, as surely you must know if you've seen me talk about PR. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Well, I'd begin by noting the famous advice when asked for directions: I wouldn't have started from here. The last election was a completely unnecessary exercise in personal political ambition that turned into possibly the biggest political blunder for decades, crippling the government and leaving it at the mercy of a handful of Conservative Eurosceptics.

So what Theresa May should have done, personally, is not hold the election: and what she should have done after it is, resign. But since she has not a single ounce of personal integrity, that did not happen. 

Not sure who this is addressed to. It's not me, because it's not arguing against anything I said.

There's nothing wrong with doing a deal, but there's a great deal wrong with the deal that Theresa May chose to do. It essentially gave the DUP, a terrible, regressive party whose leadership was under investigation for corruption, a veto over government policy and ensured that power-sharing in NI could not be restored except on their terms: and, of course, it created the current impasse over Brexit and the Irish border, because the DUP have a veto over that, too. It has increased tensions in NI and abandoned the UK government's role as a mediator. It has allied her party with a bunch of religious fanatics. It's a vile deal. And to say that this is a vile deal is not to attack the concept of doing deals at all. I'm all in favour of that, as surely you must know if you've seen me talk about PR. 

Have you considered a career in politics? You dodged that question expertly. 

[mormont]

33 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Have you considered a career in politics? You dodged that question expertly. 

No. I answered it clearly. 

What should the Tories have done?

1. They should not have held an unnecessary, self-indulgent election.

1a. For that matter they should not have held an unnecessary, self-indulgent referendum, which - let's be honest - was done for narrow party political reasons, papering over cracks in their own party that had led to the rise of UKIP. And if they were going to hold one, they should have taken it seriously, with clear information for voters.

2. May should have resigned following that election.

Now, up to this point, you might say this is ducking the question, but that would be dumb. It's like saying 'if you'd murdered someone, how would you get rid of the body?' To which the reply 'I wouldn't have murdered anyone' is a perfectly legitimate answer. But even if you're not happy with that, there's:

3. They should have done a deal that was in the interests of the nation, not the interests of Theresa May's career. 

What would that look like? There were options. A minority government with a formal agreement to work with Labour over Brexit in the national interest, for example (radical as that sounds). But instead the Tories plumped for a deal which they can legitimately be criticised for. It's not required that I, a random voter, come up with a detailed political options paper before criticising the government for jumping into bed with a bunch of bigots to save their own political skins. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

No. I answered it clearly. 

What should the Tories have done?

1. They should not have held an unnecessary, self-indulgent election.

1a. For that matter they should not have held an unnecessary, self-indulgent referendum, which - let's be honest - was done for narrow party political reasons, papering over cracks in their own party that had led to the rise of UKIP. And if they were going to hold one, they should have taken it seriously, with clear information for voters.

2. May should have resigned following that election.

Now, up to this point, you might say this is ducking the question, but that would be dumb. It's like saying 'if you'd murdered someone, how would you get rid of the body?' To which the reply 'I wouldn't have murdered anyone' is a perfectly legitimate answer. But even if you're not happy with that, there's:

3. They should have done a deal that was in the interests of the nation, not the interests of Theresa May's career. 

What would that look like? There were options. A minority government with a formal agreement to work with Labour over Brexit in the national interest, for example (radical as that sounds). But instead the Tories plumped for a deal which they can legitimately be criticised for. It's not required that I, a random voter, come up with a detailed political options paper before criticising the government for jumping into bed with a bunch of bigots to save their own political skins. 

But that wasn't what I asked, you're changing the question a bit to make it one you want to answer (as I say, classic politician's tactic, and don't take that as an insult, I'm not one of these dullards who thinks all politicians and everything they do is bad). I wouldn't give you a nice open ended question like that. I asked "What should the Tories have done after the last election results?". I made it clear the question was after the election, because I was sure you'd give answer one, and I made the question The Tories instead of "Theresa May" so you couldn't give answer two. 

There you go, that's actually an answer to the question I asked! I feel like Paxman. I'm really not sure a minority government could rule with our current political climate, but maybe you're right, and it is a possibility. 

Well I didn't ask you as "a random voter", I asked you because you were the one specifically making the "sell out" accusation. Calling someone a "sell out" surely assumes they had other options more in keeping with their principles. I mean if Labour had got into bed with the DUP, I could easily see that as selling out. But the Tories are hardly diametrically opposed to the DUP, in many ways in makes a lot of sense, a lot of us are still represented by Tories who opposed gay marraige, for example. 

My more general point here is a frustration at the way that people tend to ignore the political realities of democracy, and think that any kind of compromise is proof that someone is just an unprincipled shit. In the real world, compromise is how things work. Obviously if you get a massive majority like Thatcher and Blair, you can do things the way you want. When election results go like they did last time, these types of compromises are inevitable. If you do want some form of PR, you're shooting yourself in the foot by reacting this way (I don't know if you talked about the Lib Dems the same way, but you'll be aware that many people did). 

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I asked "What should the Tories have done after the last election results?".

And I have answered that question clearly and directly.

ETA - and given that this is my third post on the subject, I've really been much more reasonable and fulsome in my reply than the question honestly deserves, IMNSHO. So I'm drawing a line on that one.