UK Politics : Groundhog May

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Is it a common opinion that Cameron is the worst PM ever? I would have figured that was Chamberlain’s title until the end of time. And frankly May is worse if she intentionally lets a hard Brexit happen.

Also, this bacon sandwich business. This is the first I’m hearing about it. Must be a difference in cultures, because it’s a presidential candidate’s rite of passage to eat food awkwardly here. Just Google Michele Bachmann eating a corn dog.

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it a common opinion that Cameron is the worst PM ever?

To be fair, this opinion is largely predicated on how unbelievably stupid and irresponsible he was to promise and then hold a referendum on EU membership without doing much, or perhaps any, of the preparation required to avoid or deal with a vote to leave. 

It's still staggering to me how incredibly arrogant that was.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

To be fair, this opinion is largely predicated on how unbelievably stupid and irresponsible he was to promise and then hold a referendum on EU membership without doing much, or perhaps any, of the preparation required to avoid or deal with a vote to leave. 

It's still staggering to me how incredibly arrogant that was.  

Eh, he made a common mistake in politics: he assumed his constituents weren’t complete morons. But his actions did still left you guys with off-ramps. May, OTOH, seems to have decided that to save herself, she must sacrifice the wellbeing of generations of citizens of the U.K. That’s worse. And it’s foolish because when you guys immediately go into a depression, she’ll be canned anyways.

I believe my titular character put it best:

 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, he made a common mistake in politics: he assumed his constituents weren’t complete morons. But his actions did still left you guys with off-ramps. May, OTOH, seems to have decided that to save herself, she must sacrifice the wellbeing of generations of citizens of the U.K. That’s worse. And it’s foolish because when you guys immediately go into a depression, she’ll be canned anyways.

He didn't really. He basically allowed a referendum and made an explicit promise that the outcome of that referendum would be enacted by government. He made a series of massive misjudgements about his own ability, about the mood of the public and about how the EU works, and it led us to this point. 

May has also made a huge number of mistakes, but I think the path she was put on was started by Cameron. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is it a common opinion that Cameron is the worst PM ever? I would have figured that was Chamberlain’s title until the end of time. And frankly May is worse if she intentionally lets a hard Brexit happen.

.

Chamberlain gets a bit of a bad rap. England and France were in no condition for another war in '38. Or '39 for that matter.

There are surprisingly rational economic and industrial reasons for both the Allies' attempts to buy time for rearmament and Hitler's decision to force their hand (he thought they'd cave again though) in Poland.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, he made a common mistake in politics: he assumed his constituents weren’t complete morons.

Well, no. 

First of all, he knew very well the dangers, as the leader of his party. The entire reason he agreed to hold the referendum was that the issue had been dividing his party for years, and past leaders had all failed in attempts to deal with it. So not only did he definitely know that his backbenchers and his party members had an irrational, irreconcilable loathing for the EU that was being actively promoted to the rest of the country by the main media outlets: that was the whole reason he was holding the referendum in the first place.

Second, his laziness and arrogance contributed to the loss by ceding the field almost entirely to Leave campaigners. They could (and did) say anything, promise anything, because Cameron didn't have an answer to the question 'what does Brexit actually look like?' It's a major reason that Leave won. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, he made a common mistake in politics: he assumed his constituents weren’t complete morons.

The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. Wasn't that one attributed to Churchill. Anyway, no way how you spin it, Cameron gambled with the future of his country twice. The first one was IndyRef, with which he got away. Then with his Brexit referendum, which he lost. To top it off, he had his goverment make no preparations in case he lost. The referendum itself was a stupid gamble, but the no preparation bit is the thing that takes the thing to a whole new level of irresponsibility and also takes the cake.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

May, OTOH, seems to have decided that to save herself, she must sacrifice the wellbeing of generations of citizens of the U.K.

That's a case to be made in Cameron'S defense. I still think he is the one that started it, and then ran off. Why should I deal with that difficult shit? Was something he rumoredly said. He knew exactly what mess he had created, and that spoiled brat did, what spoiled brats do, he left it to somebody else to clean up his mess. And instead of killing off some fringe movement from within the backbenches, the referendum empowered those fuckwits and May has the choice of inflicting harm incredible economic harm on her country or split her party. She picked party over country. FWIW I think Cameron would have ended up in a similar spot, with a similar choice. And there's really not much to suggest he'd have the stomach to tell the loonie bits of his party to feck off (afterall the refenredum was to pacify them and stop the bleeding of voters defecting to UKIP).

Don't be mistaken, the Tories have more or less signed off to a hard or no-deal Brexit, as evidenced by Nicky Moron Morgan (former Tory Remainer). She signed off to that so called Malthouse Compromise. Which in its core is really a load of rehashed brexiter nonsense of non-existent technologies solving the Irish border issue (with some other bollocks). Personally, I assumed Malthouse was the name of the goverment's Brewery (so a location like Chequers or Lancaster House), and they just had one too many when they came up with that, but no, it's the actual name of a Tory MP, who may or may not have had one too many when he wrote it. So the conservative party has more or less closed ranks with just very few holding out (like Soubry).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

If the end point is a hard Brexit, then yes you did have opportunities to mitigate this. You could have held a second referendum, as I’ve advocated for, you could have put forth a better effort in getting a more viable deal or you could have just completely ignored the results of the referendum. And I’m sure there were other options too. May has bungled this process at every step of the way, and from my view from afar, really hasn’t done very much to help her country. She publicly advocated for a deal no one wanted and the EU openly said no chance. That’s not Cameron’s fault. Sure he caused all this, but May has been a disaster. I guess it all comes down to who you want to blame for burning the house to the ground, the one who dosed in gasoline or the one that lit the match. Both actors will be condemned forever, but the true calamity will happen on May’s watch. Allowing a hard Brexit is nothing short of completely unforgivable, especially if one can prevent it, which she can.

[Fez]

Serious question, who was the last British PM who wasn't 1) bad at their job (May), 2) completely ineffectual (Brown, Major), 3) implemented terrible policies (Thatcher), 4) made horrible blunders (Blair), or 5) all of the above (Cameron, probably also May)?

I don't know much about pre-Thatcher PMs, but Harold Wilson seems alright. That's over 40 years ago though and the others around him, Callaghan, Heath, Macmillian, and Eden all seem pretty bad as well.

[Chaircat Meow]

Olly Robbins overheard in a bar.

Suggests choice before MPs in March will be deal or long extension not deal or no deal.

Two, confirms that May saw the all-UK backstop as a way of sliding her preferred future relationship into the legally binding bit of the Withdrawal Treaty, and not as the safety net which the backstop is being sold as. 

 

I have to say all this makes sense to me and I am inclined to believe it. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Wait a second, the backstop is her prefered final destination?

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Wait a second, the backstop is her prefered final destination?

No, but it was going to be a bridge to the future relationship, i.e. something to be built on and improved, not something to be escaped. In other words, she wanted the permanent customs union and some halfway house on regulatory alignment, which is, on some readings, not very far from Labour's stated policy.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Not sure where the halfway house comes in.

In stage two, when the UK service industry will scream about access to the EU market, the EU will yank on the UK's chain quite hard.

[Chaircat Meow]

20 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not sure where the halfway house comes in.

In stage two, when the UK service industry will scream about access to the EU market, the EU will yank on the UK's chain quite hard.

The backstop does involve a halfway house on regulations, i.e. the UK pledges not to regress on certain employment laws, state aid and competition and so, but it doesn't apply news laws. 

Presumably May, as a final destination wants to remove the UK from some of the rules and regulations that come as part of the SM (esp freedom of movement) and to retain some of the access the UK previously enjoyed. That would seem to necessitate a halfway house arrangement on various regulations, trading some access for control and vice versa.

 

Also look at this:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (+5)

LAB: 35% (-3)

LDEM: 10% (+1)

GRN: 4% (-)

UKIP: 3% (-3)

via Kantar, 07 - 11 Feb Chgs. w/ 14 Jan

That Tory lead may be real.

How can Labourites live with the shame of serving under Corbyn?

[Heartofice]

Oh god it all makes sense now.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

but it doesn't apply news laws.  

I assume you meant new laws, not laws regarding newspapers. Anyway, typos aside, there will be some mechanism in place to make the UK adopt new EU laws. To assume otherwise looks awfully naive. As in a Customs Union, or any such system (like SM) can only tolerate a certain degree of divergence.

 

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

Presumably May, as a final destination wants to remove the UK from some of the rules and regulations that come as part of the SM (esp freedom of movement) and to retain some of the access the UK previously enjoyed. That would seem to necessitate a halfway house arrangement on various regulations, trading some access for control and vice versa. 

I think she will have to concede quite heavily on her red lines again, the very moment the service sector starts to scream. I mean even hoI realizes that's the key to the UK economy. And this also happens to be the trickiest bit to negotiate access to in any trade negotiation. Stage two has again the EU having quite a bit of leverage over the UK there. I really don't see much room for divergence there. I think without the UK blocking it, the EU might also be more inclined to take some harsher regulatory measures on that industry (but that might be wishful thinking on my part). Every bit of access will come at a price there.

[Chaircat Meow]

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I assume you meant new laws, not laws regarding newspapers. Anyway, typos aside, there will be some mechanism in place to make the UK adopt new EU laws. To assume otherwise looks awfully naive. As in a Customs Union, or any such system (like SM) can only tolerate a certain degree of divergence.

 

I think she will have to concede quite heavily on her red lines again, the very moment the service sector starts to scream. I mean even hoI realizes that's the key to the UK economy. And this also happens to be the trickiest bit to negotiate access to in any trade negotiation. Stage two has again the EU having quite a bit of leverage over the UK there. I really don't see much room for divergence there. I think without the UK blocking it, the EU might also be more inclined to take some harsher regulatory measures on that industry (but that might be wishful thinking on my part). Every bit of access will come at a price there.

As I understand it the backstop does grant the UK access to the EU customs area without it signing it up to all the rules (i.e. the payments) and with weaker enforcement mechanisms, although of course it is supposed to be temporary.

Anyway, I am just explaining the thinking Robbins attributes to May, not trying to forecast any future negotiations, which may or may not happen.

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Olly Robbins overheard in a bar.

Suggests choice before MPs in March will be deal or long extension not deal or no deal.

Two, confirms that May saw the all-UK backstop as a way of sliding her preferred future relationship into the legally binding bit of the Withdrawal Treaty, and not as the safety net which the backstop is being sold as.

I have to say all this makes sense to me and I am inclined to believe it. 

It is an indication of how bad the situation is that the prospect of us all indefinitely arguing about the same issues and never making any progress sounds like the best outcome we can hope for at the moment.

[mormont]

12 hours ago, williamjm said:

It is an indication of how bad the situation is that the prospect of us all indefinitely arguing about the same issues and never making any progress sounds like the best outcome we can hope for at the moment.

And we have much more of this to come, because we haven't even begun to negotiate the future relationship agreement yet. This is only the transition agreement. 

So we can expect Brexit to dominate UK politics for years yet. Way to resolve the issue! But that does choke off discussion on other important issues, such as the con trick the Tories have pulled over free TV licenses for the over-75s, which is now coming to a head.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/20/bbc-says-channels-may-close-without-over-75s-licence-fee

Quote

 

The BBC has said it will have to close channels and make enormous cuts to its services unless over-75s are made to pay for the licence fee, as it prepares to cover the loss of government funding that currently allows older people to consume its content for free.

The corporation put a number of proposals on reforming the subsidy out for consultation on Tuesday, saying that the £745m cost of maintaining the status quo would take up a fifth of its budget and equates to the total amount it spends on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC News channel, CBBC and CBeebies.

Naturally, and completely as the government intended, this is being portrayed in the right-wing BBC-hating press as the Evil Beeb picking on your poor defenceless granny who will have to choose between her only lifeline from loneliness, or buying food. But in fact, what happened was the government cut a benefit but told everyone that someone else would be paying for it instead, in the full knowledge that this was impossible. They knew the BBC couldn't pay, but pretended they could so that the BBC would either have to take the blame or take an enormous blow to its finances. Save money and cripple an enemy in one go. Probably seemed like a brilliant wheeze. Shame about all the pensioners and the people who want a viable BBC, but fuck those people, right? 

[Heartofice]

In important news, Theresa May will scrape the mouldy bit off the top of jars of jam and eat the bit underneath. She is a fiend.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-jam-scraping-habit-13993946?1