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

[SeanF]

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 2:31 PM, mankytoes said:

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). 

The government had two choices after the election.  Govern as a minority, and try to win votes on an issue by issue basis.  And Labour would certainly not help them out over Brexit (although individual Labour MPs might) or reach a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP.  They chose the logical option. And hardly unprecedented;  Unionists took the Conservative whip up till 1974.

Edit:  Either the Conservatives reached a C & S agreement with the DUP, or they did lots of mini-deals with the DUP (and other parties) in the manner of Jim Callaghan's government.  But, they lack a figure like Walter Harrison, the Labour Chief Whip, who repeatedly eked out tiny majorities for Labour, by such means as  giving disguises to some of his MPs so that they could vote twice.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The government had two choices after the election.  Govern as a minority, and try to win votes on an issue by issue basis.  And Labour would certainly not help them out over Brexit (although individual Labour MPs might) or reach a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP.  They chose the logical option. And hardly unprecedented;  Unionists took the Conservative whip up till 1974.

The thing with the minority government option is that the Tory party isn't particularly united, so before you have to worry about getting Labour MPs onside, you have to get all of your party. 

And the obvious question is- if the Tories were capable of ruling as a minority without the DUP support, why didn't they? 

There's a good reason people tend to get very slippy on the subject. People like their politics simple- goodies and baddies. 

[BigFatCoward]

Is Julian Assange the least grateful person in the world? What a prick. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

And why have they not just kicked him to the kerb?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Send him here. Mr. Mueller would probably like a word.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, I was listening to the international news roundup on NPR and they made it seem like May is punting for another year on Brexit and that there might be a second referendum*. IS that accurate?


*Which is what I've argued here should have always happened, personal political consequences be damned. Your EO's careers are not more important than the stability of the UK and the EU. 

If I have my UK slang correct, they be wankers! 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Also, I was listening to the international news roundup on NPR and they made it seem like May is punting for another year on Brexit and that there might be a second referendum*. IS that accurate?

At this point this is a rather academic question.

The EU has offered a transition period of 3 years instead of 2 years. However, there has to be a Withdrawal Agreement in place, otherwise it's lights out in March. And the Withdrawal Agreement will still break down over the Irish border.

The transition period (be it two or three years) is for neogiating the future relationship between the UK and EU. But like I said, no Withdrawal Agreement, no transition, no fun.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Thanks. And yikes. The report also made it seem like the business community is bewildered by all of this and that they're furious with the people who want a hard Brexit with a "we'll just have to see what happens" attitude. That sounds like one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[polishgenius]

Assange is definitely a humongous prick. Whether you think he's also been set up with the rape charges or not.

[Werthead]

13 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Also, I was listening to the international news roundup on NPR and they made it seem like May is punting for another year on Brexit and that there might be a second referendum*. IS that accurate?

As Horse said above.

I believe that the arguments for a second referendum are now getting stronger. Even some Brexiteers have called for one, believing they'll win with a greater majority which would give them more backing for a hard Brexit and shut up the Remainers for good. A second referendum is only viable, though, if the facts on the ground change since the first referendum. If a deal becomes impossible and the question changes to "Should Britain Remain or leave without a deal?", I think that achieves that goal.

Right now the chances of a deal are vanishingly low, so we're pretty much at that point already. There's a huge march in London today demanding a second referendum, so we'll see if that changes any minds.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Maybe you can add another option, involving JRM, Boris, Farage and Cameron and lamp posts. I still think there's a reasonable case to be made for Corbyn to be included on that list.

[A wilding]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

There's a huge march in London today demanding a second referendum, so we'll see if that changes any minds.

We went on the march today, we wanted to stand up and be counted, despite rather doubting it will make any difference. There were indeed an enormous number of people there - it was more like a queue than a march, we were over two hours behind the front of it and nowhere near the back, but still didn't get to the end at Parliament Square until after the speeches had finished.

What struck me most was how peaceful and good humoured it all was. And this the more so because the standout event of the day for me was the Brexiteer who accosted Mrs W and me when we were walking across Hyde Park to get to the start. I won't dignify his vitriolic death threat laden rant by repeating it, but it really felt that he was pretty close to violence - attempting something like trying to drive a car into the demonstrators. If I had any doubts about being there, that ended them, when your opposition is driven by propaganda fuelled hate like that it really makes you feel on the right side.

 

[Werthead]

54 minutes ago, A wilding said:

We went on the march today, we wanted to stand up and be counted, despite rather doubting it will make any difference. There were indeed an enormous number of people there - it was more like a queue than a march, we were over two hours behind the front of it and nowhere near the back, but still didn't get to the end at Parliament Square until after the speeches had finished.

What struck me most was how peaceful and good humoured it all was. And this the more so because the standout event of the day for me was the Brexiteer who accosted Mrs W and me when we were walking across Hyde Park to get to the start. I won't dignify his vitriolic death threat laden rant by repeating it, but it really felt that he was pretty close to violence - attempting something like trying to drive a car into the demonstrators. If I had any doubts about being there, that ended them, when your opposition is driven by propaganda fuelled hate like that it really makes you feel on the right side.

As Mormont rightly said a page or two back, it's because some people think that democracy is a TV talent show contest: if you get 50.1% of the vote, your side wins and you can completely ignore everyone else's opinions. That's certainly how US politics has gone. In reality democracy is a constantly ongoing, changing process.

The stupidity of the opposition to the second referendum is that the polling hasn't really shifted a great deal. If there was a second referendum Leave could very well win again. If so then that gives the government the mandate for a hard Brexit that does not exist at the moment.

[mankytoes]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Maybe you can add another option, involving JRM, Boris, Farage and Cameron and lamp posts. I still think there's a reasonable case to be made for Corbyn to be included on that list.

Lololynching?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

3 hours ago, A wilding said:

We went on the march today, we wanted to stand up and be counted, despite rather doubting it will make any difference. There were indeed an enormous number of people there - it was more like a queue than a march, we were over two hours behind the front of it and nowhere near the back, but still didn't get to the end at Parliament Square until after the speeches had finished.

What struck me most was how peaceful and good humoured it all was. And this the more so because the standout event of the day for me was the Brexiteer who accosted Mrs W and me when we were walking across Hyde Park to get to the start. I won't dignify his vitriolic death threat laden rant by repeating it, but it really felt that he was pretty close to violence - attempting something like trying to drive a car into the demonstrators. If I had any doubts about being there, that ended them, when your opposition is driven by propaganda fuelled hate like that it really makes you feel on the right side.

 

 

I'm glad you where ok.

 

I was there too.  I joined when the front got to Trafalgar  (we shorter marchers filled the square while we waited).  I filtered in at the front of the March and although I slipped back a bit as most people walk much faster than me, not one person walked into me which is a first.  I must try holding a big sign over my head more often.   I got to Parliament square what must of been like an hour before the speeches started, as they ended they told us that the back of the March was walking though Hyde Park.

 

It was a fantastic experience and I am so glad I went.  Everyone was really really friendly, welcoming and it felt so right being there.  Even the Brexiteer working in the cafe in Trafalgar was nice to us.

 

The first person to comment on my sign was an Elderly lady shuffling along with her zimmer frame in Shenfield where I caught the train.  She wished me good luck, then Told me to "Shove my sign up Borrises willy, as it will hurt more than his arse!"   I want to be just like her when I grow up.

 

 

[Denvek]

6 hours ago, Pebble said:

I was there too.  I joined when the front got to Trafalgar  (we shorter marchers filled the square while we waited).  I filtered in at the front of the March and although I slipped back a bit as most people walk much faster than me, not one person walked into me which is a first.  I must try holding a big sign over my head more often.   I got to Parliament square what must of been like an hour before the speeches started, as they ended they told us that the back of the March was walking though Hyde Park.

 

Shows you how big it was - if they're in Hyde Park then they still haven't got to the official start of the march route.

The speeches were finished long before I got Parliament Square, and I'm pretty sure from where I started there were more people behind me than in front of me.

[A wilding]

11 hours ago, Pebble said:

I'm glad you where ok.

 

Thanks, but I have to admit it was not exactly frightening. Us being English, it was more shocking and embarrassing than anything else.

[mormont]

Your daily disaster forecast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45952284

Quote

 

Britain will "pay the price" of a no-deal Brexit because complicated new border controls may not be ready in time, a government watchdog has warned.

Thousands of UK exporters did not have enough time to prepare for new border rules, the National Audit Office said.

Criminal gangs could exploit any border weaknesses and queues and delays were likely at border crossings, it added.

 

Quote

 

The National Audit Office acknowledged that government had made some progress on preparing for the possibility of a "hard" Brexit.

Its head, Sir Amyas Morse, said: "The government has openly accepted the border will be sub-optimal if there is no deal with the EU on 29 March 2019.

"It is not clear what sub-optimal means in practice, or how long this will last.

"But what is clear is that businesses and individuals who are reliant on the border running smoothly will pay the price."

 

'Sub-optimal'. A euphemism for post-Brexit UK if there ever was one. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Your daily disaster forecast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45952284

'Sub-optimal'. A euphemism for post-Brexit UK if there ever was one.  

sub-optimal. Haven't heard that one in almost 20 years. A pity it's so rarely used around here these days, it's always been one of my (if not my) favorite euphemism.

Anyway. I thought May was now more or less willing to grudgingly sign up to the permanent backstop, if she doesn't get removed before that. I was already looking forward for the next British GE, with another hung parliament, with the Tories being literally being out of options to secure a majority (with the DUP seething over the backstop). I mean those are literally her options at this point if Brexit was to proceed. Permanent back stop, or crash.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 10/21/2018 at 11:25 AM, Werthead said:

The stupidity of the opposition to the second referendum is that the polling hasn't really shifted a great deal. If there was a second referendum Leave could very well win again. If so then that gives the government the mandate for a hard Brexit that does not exist at the moment.

The issue with a second referendum is that if Remain win narrowly, can Leave demand two-out-of-three?