Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Go on.

Anyway, as I was saying in the old thread. Labour under a competent Leadership and a clear Remain message would electorally murder the Tories, as they'd deserve it. But with Corbyn and Milne, let's just say they are not even half the political animal Blair was.

On a seperate note, didn't he save Corbyn from deselection back in the days?

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how things would have turned out had Ed Miliband stuck around after the 2015 election. Would he have won the 2017 election? Would May even have called one without Corbyn in charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several points:

  • The country is dangerously polarised, and will remain so until Brexit is dealt with.
  • First Past the Post means that Labour becoming a Remainer-Only Party would invite disaster (Leave won a large majority of constituencies). Labour needs Leavers to actually win, otherwise it ends up gerrymandering itself.
  • No, Blair did not save Corbyn. IIRC, he declined to try and push out Corbyn, which is something different.
  • There would have been no 2017 election without Corbyn - and recall that after 2015, Labour needed a 1997-style swing just to get a bare majority.
  • Fence-straddling - while pleasing no-one - at least tries to prevent a descent into US-style "demonise the other side" culture politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Several points:

  • The country is dangerously polarised, and will remain so until Brexit is dealt with.

My concern is that Brexit is never really going to be "dealt" with. Our relationship with Europe is going to be a major issue for the forseeable future, whether we're a member of the EU or not. Even if we did somehow put the issue to bed, I don't think that will reverse political polaristation. I think Brexit is largely a symptom of polarisation rather than a cause, and that polarisation is more due to fundamental differences of values rather than specific policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Several points:

  • The country is dangerously polarised, and will remain so until Brexit is dealt with.
  • First Past the Post means that Labour becoming a Remainer-Only Party would invite disaster (Leave won a large majority of constituencies). Labour needs Leavers to actually win, otherwise it ends up gerrymandering itself.
  • No, Blair did not save Corbyn. IIRC, he declined to try and push out Corbyn, which is something different.
  • There would have been no 2017 election without Corbyn - and recall that after 2015, Labour needed a 1997-style swing just to get a bare majority.
  • Fence-straddling - while pleasing no-one - at least tries to prevent a descent into US-style "demonise the other side" culture politics.
  • It will remain polarized well after Brexit is dealt with. Which outome would pacify Leavers and Remainers in your mind?
  • You saw at the EU election and the latest By-Election in Wales how this non-sensical flip-floping is playing out for Labour. 80% of Labour members want to remain. So Corbyn is trying to appease 20% of its members (and arguably a minority of potential Labour voters) by chasing after those mythical Lexit votes.
  • That's why I asked. I roughly had it in the back of my head, that Corbyn's political career could've been over, were it not for Blair.
  • Arguably although, calling the 2017 election was more down to May and her political calculus backfiring. Corbyn did not call that election, he provoked by appearing like an easy opponent. If you want to give Corbyn credit for that, fine.
  • And Labour is paying the price. They are getting despised from both sides and mauled in the polls. Again 80% of the Labour member's want to remain. I give Corbyn that this Schrödinger's Brexit position was electorally helpful for Labour in 2017, when Brexit was still more abstract. But the more real, and thus the trade offs became visible, the less tennable that non-sensical position has become. Everybody can see that. I'll spare you the embarassment of trying to explain how this non-positioning on the biggest political issue in modern British history is in any shape or form reconcillable with Corbyn's (self-)image as principled politician.
Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A Horse Named Stranger

I quoted you in the old thread as I posted straight from my notifications and didn’t see the new thread beforehand, sorry about that, here is what I said in reply.

 

His Brexit stance plays a large part in it, people are going to look at that and think do we want someone that indecisive running the Country?.

In the time I have been old enough to pay attention to politics (I’m 31 now) I think the best period was the coalition I was hoping there would be another one in 2015 but sadly the Tories got a majority and the Brexit mess started.

Personally I think Ed Milliband was a better leader than Corbyn, I think his brother would have been a better leader than either of them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:
  • It will remain polarized well after Brexit is dealt with. Which outome would pacify Leavers and Remainers in your mind?
  • You saw at the EU election and the latest By-Election in Wales how this non-sensical flip-floping is playing out for Labour. 80% of Labour members want to remain. So Corbyn is trying to appease 20% of its members (and arguably a minority of potential Labour voters) by chasing after those mythical Lexit votes.
  • That's why I asked. I roughly had it in the back of my head, that Corbyn's political career could've been over, were it not for Blair.
  • Arguably although, calling the 2017 election was more down to May and her political calculus backfiring. Corbyn did not call that election, he provoked by appearing like an easy opponent. If you want to give Corbyn credit for that, fine.
  • And Labour is paying the price. They are getting despised from both sides and mauled in the polls. Again 80% of the Labour member's want to remain. I give Corbyn that this Schrödinger's Brexit position was electorally helpful for Labour in 2017, when Brexit was still more abstract. But the more real, and thus the trade offs became visible, the less tennable that non-sensical position has become. Everybody can see that. I'll spare you the embarassment of trying to explain how this non-positioning on the biggest political issue in modern British history is in any shape or form reconcillable with Corbyn's (self-)image as principled politician.

Well, for a start, I think we all know what Corbyn's actual view of Brexit is. His problem is that most of his supporters within the Party - the ones he needs to fight off his own MPs - are Remainers. The flipside is that a third of Labour voters voted Leave in 2016, and they're positioned in seats that Labour needs to win. Running up huge margins in Remain areas won't win Labour office, because there literally aren't enough Remain areas.

I did acknowledge the downside of fence-straddling. But, quite apart from any electoral concerns, I think there is something to be said for at least trying - albeit unsuccessfully - to keep both sides of the country on the same page. American-style culture wars ("Leave voters are all ignorant racist bigots!" "Remain voters want unlimited immigration, and perpetual servitude to Brussels!") are not healthy in a democracy, and UK voting patterns *are* getting more American.

(Speaking of which... Corbyn's 2017 electoral coalition, in terms of class and demographic make-up, was actually more stereotypically Blairite than anything Blair ever managed. In terms of electoral geography, Labour is slowly turning into the Democrats).

Edited by The Marquis de Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Marquis de Leech said:

The flipside is that a third of Labour voters voted Leave in 2016, and they're positioned in seats that Labour needs to win. Running up huge margins in Remain areas won't win Labour office, because there literally aren't enough Remain areas. 

Like I said, that worked in 2017, with Brexit just this abstract thing people voted for various reasons, to either get money to the NHS, to stick it to Cameron (and vote against austerity) without fully grasping what they were actual doing, or to get the bloody Poles* out, or to help the British fishers. So which of those are voting groups are representaive for Labour voters? Furthermore, you assume that those Labour Brexit voters still want to leave, and it's not Tory voters, who went remain are now getting in line with their party? Furthermore, this strategy takes Labour remainers for granted, if they turn on Labour at the next GE like they did at the EU election, then Labour will struggle to even get to their 2015 numbers.

 

*Poles are used as representatives for Eastern Europeans here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cheltenham, around lunchtime (unfortunately, I do walk across in front of the camera):

 

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Go on.

Anyway, as I was saying in the old thread. Labour under a competent Leadership and a clear Remain message would electorally murder the Tories, as they'd deserve it. 

The point I poorly attempted to make in the last thread is that I don't think this is actually possible. Centre left parties can put up the most milquetoast centrist imaginable and the right wing party will act as though they are a raving extremist that is an existential threat to the nation. This has been effective multiple times in multiple Anglosphere nations in the last decade and there's no reason to think they'd stop while it's working.

It's a failure of how the media is currently functioning that helps it work - they report on what is said each time it's said and slowly this narrative seeps into the collective consciousness like it's a fact. 

I don't think you can defeat it by tacking to the centre because you won't be seen as occupying it anyway. You counter it by showing integrity and standing up for your principles. The centre left leaders that have failed have not done this and while Corbyn certainly passes on having left wing policies he has still failed on other fronts - in particular I think the Brexit situation really undermines his integrity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

@A Horse Named Stranger

 

Personally I think Ed Milliband was a better leader than Corbyn, I think his brother would have been a better leader than either of them though.

Honestly if he was leader (David) he would be polling at about 70%. It makes me sick. Even though, apart from Brexit I'm probably closer to Corbyn ideology wise. But let's face it, he couldn't beat a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. He's fucking useless. 

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The point I poorly attempted to make in the last thread is that I don't think this is actually possible. Centre left parties can put up the most milquetoast centrist imaginable and the right wing party will act as though they are a raving extremist that is an existential threat to the nation. This has been effective multiple times in multiple Anglosphere nations in the last decade and there's no reason to think they'd stop while it's working. 

You might make that point wrt to Anglosphere nations (nice phrasing, btw. I'll add that to my mental dictionary, sounds so much more sophisticted than English speaking nations). Anyway, you can attribute it to a varying degree on the media. Trump and Brexit were certainly pushed for by right wing medias, but equally by main stream medias not living up to their responsibility. Instead of providing a factual counterweight, they have entertained this misguided sense of false balance. So instead of calling out right wing (media) BS as such, they treated it as an equally valuable part of a conversation. That's not how it works, if the media fails to call out lies, it has nothing to do with balance, it's enablement. We can have this conversation over and over again about the disproportiante amount of air time liars like Frogface received unchallenged. But then again, there' also another mechanism at play. The personal integrity bit. The political left still values such things, and thus expects its political leaders to lead by example and have some integrity. The right does not hold up its representatives to equally high standards. The best example is probably Al Franken. Yes, it was the timing, but at the same time, I don't think anything would have happened, if he were a right wing Politician. The counter examples are the Republicans in US congress, who are pro-life and bully their mistresses into abortions without any conequences.

19 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't think you can defeat it by tacking to the centre because you won't be seen as occupying it anyway. You counter it by showing integrity and standing up for your principles. The centre left leaders that have failed have not done this and while Corbyn certainly passes on having left wing policies he has still failed on other fronts - in particular I think the Brexit situation really undermines his integrity.  

Again, I think this is more the bias on the left. We like our politicians to live by what they say. With Corbyn who is actually living off his reputation as this principled politician, who's spent years on the backbenches because of his political convictions, and is particularly pricky about his personal honour/integrety, the effect on him is much bigger. If you raise your finger to point at others, a thousand fingers will point at you stuff. If you campaign so heavily on your personal integrity, then I think it is absolutely fair to point out that Corbyn is not really living up to his own standards.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Honestly if he was leader (David) he would be polling at about 70%. It makes me sick. Even though, apart from Brexit I'm probably closer to Corbyn ideology wise. But let's face it, he couldn't beat a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. He's fucking useless. 

I think if they had David Milliband in charge they’d quite comfortably win an election, like you say Corbyn is unelectable.

Ideaology wise I find it hard to find a party I’m in full agreement with as I find myself more conservative leaning on taxes and the economy and much more liberal on social issues, I actually quite liked the coalition as the Lib Dems tempered the worst of the Tories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 5:16 PM, karaddin said:

I don't think you can defeat it by tacking to the centre because you won't be seen as occupying it anyway. You counter it by showing integrity and standing up for your principles. The centre left leaders that have failed have not done this and while Corbyn certainly passes on having left wing policies he has still failed on other fronts - in particular I think the Brexit situation really undermines his integrity. 

I think I agree. Corbyn has plenty of issues, but that doesn't mean that a committed left-winger with better political instincts couldn't do better. I don't think another inoffensive empty suit is really the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure,  predicted them doing something like that in one of the previous UK politics thread. Just another layer of constitutional crisis. I mean, they are already showing contempt of parliament with their latest stunt, so they might as well just ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the repercussions?

Demonstrations turning into riots?

Within the commons, could we see an MP attempting a citizen's arrest on Boris? Could the cops be called? Armed police?

If an act has passed commons, lords, and commons a second time, but the PM refuses to send for royal signature - is it already law? Would a law actually be being broken? Is it treason?

 

Now I don't think they would. Cummings would, but I think the lifelong politicians would overule him at that point, but they could try side-stepoing it by calling a GE instead, and try that publicised tactic of holding it in November

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VONC caretaker PM.

That was imho always the best bet for remainers. I think Johnson and Gove might have managed to pushed the Tory rebels a bit too much, so that this looks now very likely.

Anyway, that's only the second most bonkers idea from Brexiteers I've seen thus far.

My favorite bit was: Jonson asking for an extension, and then using the UK's very own veto to block an extension. You really have to take a moment to fully appreciate the cynicism and insanity in that.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

VONC caretaker PM.

That was imho always the best bet for remainers. I think Johnson and Gove might have managed to pushed the Tory rebels a bit too much, so that this looks now very likely.

Anyway, that's only the second most bonkers idea from Brexiteers I've seen thus far.

My favorite bit was: Jonson asking for an extension, and then using the UK's very own veto to block an extension. You really have to take a moment to fully appreciate the cynicism and insanity in that.

Yes, because I don't see how he could go about refusing to abide by a lost VONC. Worst he could do would be to petulantly refuse to sit on the right.

 

They've got to be quick though, the prorogue has stolen about half the time available.

Do they have time to risk a new law AND a VONC if it fails?

 

 

As for Boris using the UK's veto on our own extension, I'm pretty sure Theresa had to wait outside the room whilst they debated previous extensions. He'd have to re-try Farage's tactic from March, and try to convince the French / Italians / Austrians to refuse the extension.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

What would be the repercussions?

Demonstrations turning into riots?

Within the commons, could we see an MP attempting a citizen's arrest on Boris? Could the cops be called? Armed police?

If an act has passed commons, lords, and commons a second time, but the PM refuses to send for royal signature - is it already law? Would a law actually be being broken? Is it treason?

 

Now I don't think they would. Cummings would, but I think the lifelong politicians would overule him at that point, but they could try side-stepoing it by calling a GE instead, and try that publicised tactic of holding it in November

I tend to think that enough of his own cabinet would not go along with this to make it unviable. But you can never be too pessimistic where Brexit is concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×