Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 00:05:28


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


What are your thoughts on the upcoming general election?

I'm from Britain, but one of those funny parts of Britain that isn't part of the UK, so I don't get to vote in general elections, but I'm directly effected by their outcome. By way of example, my country is going to be dragged out of the EU as our membership is essentially an addendum to that of the UK, however our polity had no vote in the referendum.

So, for what it's worth, I think I can claim the status of objective but interested observer when it comes to UK politics.

I'd be interested to hear how people are planning to vote. I've read that this election could be treated by voters as a referendum on anything from NHS funding to Brexit (Breversal?), how will you approach it?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 05:29:30


Post by: MonkeyBallistic


I've never been so uncertain who to vote for before. One thing is clear to me though, we must get rid of this disastrous government. The Tories have caused utter chaos, made the country more divided than it's ever been and are wrecking public services.

I work in education. After 7 years of badly thought out changes and woeful underfunding, our education system is on its knees. I feel so sorry for all children of school age right now.

I can't decide whether to vote Labour or Libdem though.

I like Corbyn, but I don't know if I can support a party that can't support their own leader, even though he's been democratically election by their members ... twice!

I could support the Lib Dems, except I don't like Farron.

All of the opposition parties need to stop allowing May to make this election all about Brexit. It's going to happen, it's going to be awful. There are other issues now that the Tories need to be challenged on, while we still have public education and a health system left.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 05:39:00


Post by: Herzlos


I'm firmly SNP, they are the only real opposition party and provide the only possible route away from a Tory government.

I genuinely don't know what way I'd vote if i was in England, but it'd likely be tactical anti-tory rather than anything elsr.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 06:46:37


Post by: Steve steveson


 MonkeyBallistic wrote:


I can't decide whether to vote Labour or Libdem though.

I like Corbyn, but I don't know if I can support a party that can't support their own leader, even though he's been democratically election by their members ... twice!

I could support the Lib Dems, except I don't like Farron.
.

I suggest voting on policy rather than the leader. Essential both of your worries come down to the leader in different ways, but this is not a presidential election. The leader of any party could change in 24 hours. Vote for the party, your local candidate and the parties manifesto, not for the personality at the top. If you want to vote for the leader join the party.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 07:43:00


Post by: Kilkrazy


There is no way the Lib-Dems will win a complete majority and be able to form a government, so you are safe from the prospect of Farron as PM.

I think the Lib-Dems will improve their position a lot by picking up some marginal seats where there was a strong Remain vote -- Richmond-on-Thames, but they have already ruled out a formal coalition with anyone.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 08:22:24


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I've never been so uncertain who to vote for before. One thing is clear to me though, we must get rid of this disastrous government. The Tories have caused utter chaos, made the country more divided than it's ever been and are wrecking public services.

I work in education. After 7 years of badly thought out changes and woeful underfunding, our education system is on its knees. I feel so sorry for all children of school age right now.


What are your thoughts on free schools?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 09:58:55


Post by: MonkeyBallistic


 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I've never been so uncertain who to vote for before. One thing is clear to me though, we must get rid of this disastrous government. The Tories have caused utter chaos, made the country more divided than it's ever been and are wrecking public services.

I work in education. After 7 years of badly thought out changes and woeful underfunding, our education system is on its knees. I feel so sorry for all children of school age right now.


What are your thoughts on free schools?


You could regard Free Schools as a logical extension of the Academisation of our secondary schools. Essentially, privatisation of the education system by the back door. What started out under Labour as a way of trying to bring private sector investment into the worst schools, transformed under Gove to a way for a small number of people to make a huge amount of money by setting up multi-academy chains.

The biggest issue for the pupils is that nobody has oversight of education provision for an area anymore. Millions are being wasted on setting up free schools in areas where there are already plenty of school places.

From a personal point of view, free schools and academisation have also enabled the government to totally throw out all previous agreements on teachers pay and conditions. There is a real problem with recruitment and retention of teachers and everything the government is doing is making the situation worse. Successive governments have frozen our pay (My brother with a worse degree than me earns nearly 3 times what I do, working in the private sector). They constantly talk down the profession by concentrating on the tiny minority of failing schools and talking about how our education system isn't good enough, creating a climate of mistrust between teachers and parents.

Recently the government has said we should teach maths the way they do it in Shanghai. What they are reluctant to admit is that in Shanghai maths teachers are highly valued and very well paid. Shanghai maths teachers only teach two lessons per day and spend the rest of the time preparing materials and doing one to one tuition with underachieving pupils. Currently I usually teach 5 hours per day and regularly give up lunchtimes and time after schools to help pupils out. Next year I will be spending more hours per week teaching to larger classes due to the funding crisis.

So for the rant, but I'm generally despairing right now. I'm just glad that my school has managed to avoid redundancies so far.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 12:40:07


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


It sounds like you're going to be voting along traditional political economy lines, then, or correct me if I'm wrong?

Are you animated at all by the immigration/EU issues which seem to be dominating the press and the discourse generally at the moment? What do you think of Corbyn's socialist nationalism? May is being criticised from her right for looking too eager to get the government involved in failing industries, what's your take on that?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 15:22:57


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 16:24:51


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


This is why 'none of the above' should be an option on the ballet paper. It portrays the same message without having to resort to faeces.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 16:45:17


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


This is why 'none of the above' should be an option on the ballet paper. It portrays the same message without having to resort to faeces.


Spoiling the ballot achieves precisely the same result as a 'none of the above' option, with the added advantage that it exercises the anti-authoritarian instinct, which functioning liberal democracy tends to atrophy. I suppose defecating on the ballot paper would be the same, politically, but then you'd have gak everywhere.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 16:47:04


Post by: feeder


If you're in England, you should vote Labour.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 16:50:05


Post by: Future War Cultist


Come now, the ballot counters don't deserve that gak.

But yeah, spoil your ballot paper if you feel that strongly about it. I think I will, because I can't stand my local politics. Here it's Sinn Fein or f.a.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 17:18:14


Post by: whembly


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


This is why 'none of the above' should be an option on the ballet paper. It portrays the same message without having to resort to faeces.

Can you vote for Boaty McBoatface?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 17:44:47


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


This is why 'none of the above' should be an option on the ballet paper. It portrays the same message without having to resort to faeces.


Yes but that lacks the same panache.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:19:43


Post by: feeder


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Would it be a criminal offence if I took a steaming big dump on my ballot paper? That's how I feel about this election...


This is why 'none of the above' should be an option on the ballet paper. It portrays the same message without having to resort to faeces.


Yes but that lacks the same panache.


Amazon has you covered.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:24:19


Post by: Howard A Treesong


I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.

I fear labour will be destroyed by this election, and a massive Tory majority isn't healthy. But there are no alternatives. The liberal democrats cannot win power, and are weak in coalition.

And I vote in a labour stronghold. So it's barely worth bothering either way. I'll probably give my vote to the trade unionists again, so they get their deposit back.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:31:21


Post by: r_squared


I voted conservative in the last GE to keep UKIP out,and it worked, just. Just the other day I informed my MP, Matt Warman, exactly why he wouldn't be getting my vote this time as I cannot support the conservatives constant "party first" priority.

That was until I spotted a rumour that Paul "Eddie Hitler" Nuttal OBE, BSC, BSHTR might stand in my constituency. If that's the case, you may see me in the news hurling various kitchen waste products in his direction and swearing vigorously at him for forcing me to vote Tory, again.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:37:35


Post by: feeder


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.

I fear labour will be destroyed by this election, and a massive Tory majority isn't healthy. But there are no alternatives. The liberal democrats cannot win power, and are weak in coalition.

And I vote in a labour stronghold. So it's barely worth bothering either way. I'll probably give my vote to the trade unionists again, so they get their deposit back.


What's worse, inept but well meaning, or actively trying to loot and dismantle public services?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:39:38


Post by: Whirlwind


 r_squared wrote:
I voted conservative in the last GE to keep UKIP out,and it worked, just. Just the other day I informed my MP, Matt Warman, exactly why he wouldn't be getting my vote this time as I cannot support the conservatives constant "party first" priority.

That was until I spotted a rumour that Paul "Eddie Hitler" Nuttal OBE, BSC, BSHTR might stand in my constituency. If that's the case, you may see me in the news hurling various kitchen waste products in his direction and swearing vigorously at him for forcing me to vote Tory, again.


There is another possibility however. If enough people vote against both they may divide and conquer and you might get someone else instead that quietly managed to persuade the populace that it was better than the Tories and UKIP. I don't think Nuttal has a chance though. Farage always kept carefully on the not quite bigoted/racist side of the line that didn't make some people feel uncomfortable. Nuttal is so way over that line that he's not going to get that level of support (I hope anyway).

As an aside this is May's approach to speaking to the people...force them all to go home and then fill the employers workplace with hand picked 'fans' (scroll down to the bottom part of the report).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-corbyn_uk_5902e4a6e4b02655f83b6217?utm_hp_ref=uk




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.



On what basis. The issue of trident is worth debating but the Tories (and their lapdog papers) keep on pulling it out as evidence that you can't trust him. However there is a lot of question of the value over a nuclear deterrent or whether it's just something we can say we have. Also which of Corbyn's ideas are unaffordable and fanciful. You can't just state this without some evidence or thought towards a proper debate. Maybe they are viable, have you actually checked the numbers or just listening to what the Tories and papers are saying?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 18:53:51


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Well he's mentioned renationalising the railways on multiple occasions which I think would be great... other than I just don't see it's affordable because of the state of public finances.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 19:09:18


Post by: r_squared


If Corbyn does well, or even manages to form a coalition govt, then those rebellious Blairites will fall in line, for a while.
I still think that May is trying to do this to get someone else to carry the can.

Let the left wing coalition struggle with a terrible Brexit, then ride in after 5 years to the rescue while everyone blames the Lib Dems and Labour for the horrors of the last 5 years.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 20:58:22


Post by: Whirlwind


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Well he's mentioned renationalising the railways on multiple occasions which I think would be great... other than I just don't see it's affordable because of the state of public finances.


Ah I see you are confusing inefficient propaganda of the state vs efficient businesses. In fact more state control is actually becoming more normal. A lot of Councils are bringing things in house now because they are more cost effective that way. In the 70's and 80's Councils were relatively inefficient. They had high pay, good pensions and so on. Despite what the Tory papers say this is no longer the case. The vast majority of Council's pay below the going wage for almost everything except the very high tier jobs. Pensions have been trashed so they are equivalent or worth less than the private sector pensions. The only one advantage of Councils is they are a lot more flexible on flexible working so it is easier to get a good work/life balance. However in house services are now becoming more cost effective because of the above, private businesses now have a disadvantage, they have to make a profit for their owners/share holders. The state only has to break even.

Hence it is possible to make a cost effective state service. It won't be free, but as long as it is run as a business (for example like EDF) then the Country can both maintain a healthy balance between ticket prices and ensuring there is future investment. Most companies build at least 25% profit margin into prices (and for rail I suspect it is more). If it was state controlled you could easily knock 15-20% off the price of a ticket still be gaining money that you can use for investment purposes. That's before you consider the efficiencies from having one joined up network, rather than multiple companies doing different areas. The same goes for energy supply. It can be done more cost effectively than the private industry - take the profits they make. That's £billions per year. You could have easily put that aside and then reinvested into new power plants etc. Instead we pay as a populace three times. Once for the profit of shareholders, again when we have to get loans for building the new ones and again when the country has to guarantee a price to pay over the market value.

State control railways is actually one of Corbyn's, better, more well thought ideas. It's only Tories and the wealthy that think it is a bad idea which they promote and why do you think that is?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 21:19:34


Post by: GoatboyBeta


Most of the time the coverage makes me feel like Arnie in Kindergarten cop



UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 22:10:57


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 feeder wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.

I fear labour will be destroyed by this election, and a massive Tory majority isn't healthy. But there are no alternatives. The liberal democrats cannot win power, and are weak in coalition.

And I vote in a labour stronghold. So it's barely worth bothering either way. I'll probably give my vote to the trade unionists again, so they get their deposit back.


What's worse, inept but well meaning, or actively trying to loot and dismantle public services?


Surely it depends on the extent of the ineptitude, and the extent of the looting.

From what I can see, even a strong Tory majority wouldn't empower May to drastically tamper with the NHS, schools, tax and spend in general, it'd just be the kind of shuffling to the right you'd expect. Labour under Corbyn doesn't look like it has a brake on how far left things would go. He's already demonstrated that he considers his grassroots hard left supporters his only constituency, I see nothing that indicates being in government would temper that. That's exactly what makes him unelectable in a GE.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 22:27:16


Post by: Howard A Treesong


I don't have a problem with the cost advantages of state running railways. Money spent on fat pay packets and share holders can go into running the service. But like everything else sold off there are big costs to getting it back, you can't just take control and not pour in investment. Like building hundreds of thousands of houses and investing in infrastructure, rebuilding public services, costs tend to be weighted at the front, is it really affordable? It's not Corbyn's fault that our finances are not great, but I don't see that it's all affordable without taxation, and the rich won't be taxed because they always wriggle out. I do approve of things like rent controls, and believe house prices need control, but I can see that being a hard fight because, again, its wealthy people taking the hit.

We've sold off our national industries and services and they've been driven into the ground or wound up. Steel, coal, railways, post office, energy, nuclear, and soon the NHS. And we've not got a huge lot to show for it given national debt. Where do we get the money from to take them back and invest in them? And it's not just a Tory thing, all these struggled under New Labour, and there's plenty of them still in seats.

Excuse me for being skeptical Corbyn can fulfill this dream of hammering the rich and buying back our railways. If only. It's not going to be as smooth as that and we'll all end up paying a lot more or it'll end in a mess of squabbling and nothing gets done.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/28 22:51:22


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't have a problem with the cost advantages of state running railways. Money spent on fat pay packets and share holders can go into running the service. But like everything else sold off there are big costs to getting it back, you can't just take control and not pour in investment. Like building hundreds of thousands of houses and investing in infrastructure, rebuilding public services, costs tend to be weighted at the front, is it really affordable? It's not Corbyn's fault that our finances are not great, but I don't see that it's all affordable without taxation, and the rich won't be taxed because they always wriggle out. I do approve of things like rent controls, and believe house prices need control, but I can see that being a hard fight because, again, its wealthy people taking the hit.

We've sold off our national industries and services and they've been driven into the ground or wound up. Steel, coal, railways, post office, energy, nuclear, and soon the NHS. And we've not got a huge lot to show for it given national debt. Where do we get the money from to take them back and invest in them? And it's not just a Tory thing, all these struggled under New Labour, and there's plenty of them still in seats.

Excuse me for being skeptical Corbyn can fulfill this dream of hammering the rich and buying back our railways. If only. It's not going to be as smooth as that and we'll all end up paying a lot more or it'll end in a mess of squabbling and nothing gets done.


In theory you could straight up take back ownership in a very unpopular way, just say your taking them back.
Lots lose lots of money, you still have costs and now investment etc.

Other business gets nervous you could do same.

That won,t work...

The only sensible way is to take over as contracts end. It take 5 ish years but could be done if you wanted to do it.
Again your now responsibile for bills n investment...


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 07:02:06


Post by: SilverMK2


Withdraw public subsidies of the railways, watch them all fold overnight, then buy them up for pennies on the pound tomorrow.

Kind of like how the government privitised everything in the first place...


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 08:07:36


Post by: r_squared


 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.

I fear labour will be destroyed by this election, and a massive Tory majority isn't healthy. But there are no alternatives. The liberal democrats cannot win power, and are weak in coalition.

And I vote in a labour stronghold. So it's barely worth bothering either way. I'll probably give my vote to the trade unionists again, so they get their deposit back.


What's worse, inept but well meaning, or actively trying to loot and dismantle public services?


Surely it depends on the extent of the ineptitude, and the extent of the looting.

From what I can see, even a strong Tory majority wouldn't empower May to drastically tamper with the NHS, schools, tax and spend in general, it'd just be the kind of shuffling to the right you'd expect. Labour under Corbyn doesn't look like it has a brake on how far left things would go. He's already demonstrated that he considers his grassroots hard left supporters his only constituency, I see nothing that indicates being in government would temper that. That's exactly what makes him unelectable in a GE.


What? How would Theresa May with a parliamentary majority be less able to carry out her agenda than Jeremy Corbyn at the head of a coalition Government?
I'm assuming that there would still be Tories and Blairites in parliament around to temper his "wild swing to the left"

Theresa May also seems to be only pandering to the hardest right Brexiteers in her party and the general public, so how is that better?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 08:50:10


Post by: JamesY


 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Spoiler:
 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I've never been so uncertain who to vote for before. One thing is clear to me though, we must get rid of this disastrous government. The Tories have caused utter chaos, made the country more divided than it's ever been and are wrecking public services.

I work in education. After 7 years of badly thought out changes and woeful underfunding, our education system is on its knees. I feel so sorry for all children of school age right now.


What are your thoughts on free schools?


You could regard Free Schools as a logical extension of the Academisation of our secondary schools. Essentially, privatisation of the education system by the back door. What started out under Labour as a way of trying to bring private sector investment into the worst schools, transformed under Gove to a way for a small number of people to make a huge amount of money by setting up multi-academy chains.

The biggest issue for the pupils is that nobody has oversight of education provision for an area anymore. Millions are being wasted on setting up free schools in areas where there are already plenty of school places.

From a personal point of view, free schools and academisation have also enabled the government to totally throw out all previous agreements on teachers pay and conditions. There is a real problem with recruitment and retention of teachers and everything the government is doing is making the situation worse. Successive governments have frozen our pay (My brother with a worse degree than me earns nearly 3 times what I do, working in the private sector). They constantly talk down the profession by concentrating on the tiny minority of failing schools and talking about how our education system isn't good enough, creating a climate of mistrust between teachers and parents.

Recently the government has said we should teach maths the way they do it in Shanghai. What they are reluctant to admit is that in Shanghai maths teachers are highly valued and very well paid. Shanghai maths teachers only teach two lessons per day and spend the rest of the time preparing materials and doing one to one tuition with underachieving pupils. Currently I usually teach 5 hours per day and regularly give up lunchtimes and time after schools to help pupils out. Next year I will be spending more hours per week teaching to larger classes due to the funding crisis.

So for the rant, but I'm generally despairing right now. I'm just glad that my school has managed to avoid redundancies so far.


I could have typed that exact same post. Last year I was the main class teacher of four classes, with around 90 pupils. This year it's seven classes with 160 pupils. Next year, due to budget cuts, the class sizes will all be 10% bigger.

I won't be voting Tory, and never have. As for the other two, I'm not sure I'd trust either to run a whelk stall.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 09:13:49


Post by: Whirlwind


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't have a problem with the cost advantages of state running railways. Money spent on fat pay packets and share holders can go into running the service. But like everything else sold off there are big costs to getting it back, you can't just take control and not pour in investment. Like building hundreds of thousands of houses and investing in infrastructure, rebuilding public services, costs tend to be weighted at the front, is it really affordable? It's not Corbyn's fault that our finances are not great, but I don't see that it's all affordable without taxation, and the rich won't be taxed because they always wriggle out. I do approve of things like rent controls, and believe house prices need control, but I can see that being a hard fight because, again, its wealthy people taking the hit.



Not really as long as you do it sensibly. Most contracts have break clauses in them after a certain period of time or termination clauses if they fail to achieve the contract terms (southern rail perhaps??) However as long you undertake the transfer sensibly then the actual investment costs upfront will be relatively light overall. If you wait until the contract break time then you can issue notice to terminate the contract and the current supplier can't do anything (terminating before this will leave the state open to paying the lost costs of the supplier). Most contracts will ensure that the current supplier has to leave equipment in the same form as they left it (otherwise vindictive suppliers on losing a contract can trash everything at no cost to them which immediately means the next contract is unviable). Staff would transfer across under TUPE regulations and for the first several months nothing would actually change. Then the state business can get down to determining what it needs to do to reduce costs and ensure it earns enough profit to ensure continued investment and any extra then go towards whatever the government of the day wants to spend it on (which could include reducing the deficit).

The problem is we sold off anything that was profitable leaving us with the things no one actually wants because there is a cost to it. Top this off by the fact that taxation on this possible state systems is stupidly small then you get a double hit; you've both lost an element of income and you have less way to support those areas that aren't profitable (say supporting families in hardship).

If a business can run a state wide operation and make a significant profit then so can the state if it wishes to do so. And it can then use that profit to support other areas of the country.

The real issue with state run businesses is when you get politicians with sticky fingers and start enforcing unprofitable regimes on to the state business because it is the issue they've read in the Daily Mail on the way to work - for example if they decided every seat in train carriages had to be wide enough to fit an open push chair.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 10:55:12


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Good to see UK politics discussion back in the OT.

As for the GE...well...

May is damaging the democratic process in my book: staged managed events with party sycophants, no TV debates, no questions from journalists, meaningless soundbites etc etc

not to mention her love for the surveillance state when Home Secretary...

It ain't looking good for British democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for next week's council elections, I've been reading a lot about the STV voting system, and my advice is to fill in every box.

And English dakka members: are you looking forward to electing new mayors next week in places like Manchester?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 11:48:08


Post by: r_squared


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39756016

For feths sake!

Looks like I'm stocking up on rotten eggs, rancid veg and burning bags of dog gak should this lying sack of gak show his face around here.
Why doesn't the scouse ladypart just feth off back to where he came from.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 13:05:59


Post by: GoatboyBeta


 r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39756016

For feths sake!

Looks like I'm stocking up on rotten eggs, rancid veg and burning bags of dog gak should this lying sack of gak show his face around here.
Why doesn't the scouse ladypart just feth off back to where he came from.


Same here dude. While I've got the Humber between me and Boston, he's gonna be all over the local news until June Parachuting really winds me up no matter what party does it. IMO a person should have been a resident of the area for at least 2 to 5 years before they are allowed to stand as a candidate.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 14:08:57


Post by: wuestenfux


As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 14:33:02


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 r_squared wrote:
 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I find Corbyn's ideas fanciful and unaffordable. I've no confidence in Labour to form a coherent government, they can't form a stable cabinet. I'm tired of having Trident and migrants being the big issues, when we have a housing shortage and crippling cuts into education and health. I feel we could have a strong left wing in this country, but all the groups I hear the loudest are 'virtue-signalling' and the in fighting is dreadful, there's no unity, just protest.

I fear labour will be destroyed by this election, and a massive Tory majority isn't healthy. But there are no alternatives. The liberal democrats cannot win power, and are weak in coalition.

And I vote in a labour stronghold. So it's barely worth bothering either way. I'll probably give my vote to the trade unionists again, so they get their deposit back.


What's worse, inept but well meaning, or actively trying to loot and dismantle public services?


Surely it depends on the extent of the ineptitude, and the extent of the looting.

From what I can see, even a strong Tory majority wouldn't empower May to drastically tamper with the NHS, schools, tax and spend in general, it'd just be the kind of shuffling to the right you'd expect. Labour under Corbyn doesn't look like it has a brake on how far left things would go. He's already demonstrated that he considers his grassroots hard left supporters his only constituency, I see nothing that indicates being in government would temper that. That's exactly what makes him unelectable in a GE.


What? How would Theresa May with a parliamentary majority be less able to carry out her agenda than Jeremy Corbyn at the head of a coalition Government?
I'm assuming that there would still be Tories and Blairites in parliament around to temper his "wild swing to the left"

Theresa May also seems to be only pandering to the hardest right Brexiteers in her party and the general public, so how is that better?


There's two things to consider here, one is that only UKIP has actually published their manifesto so far, so we're shooting in the dark a little bit, but my expectation is that the Tory manifesto isn't going to tack hard to the right on any area of public finances, so unless May wants to pull a Clegg and renege on central aspects of her election manifesto, she'll be bound to a fairly centrist position, strong majority or no. This is conjecture, we'll have to wait and see what the manifesto looks like.

The other thing is that May's lack of a personal mandate and her position as essentially the custodian of Cameron's mess is precisely the reason that she has to be so wary of her far right backbenchers. With a strong mandate of her own, she would be able to see off challenges from the fringes of her party. The question will be, what are her own political instincts, really?

I have to admit to an intense personal dislike of May, I think she showed in her stint as Home Secretary a deep running authoritarian streak and a tendency towards bad old Tory social conservatism. My hope is that, if she were to win a strong victory and increase the Tory parliamentary majority, I'd be proved wrong on that. The main area she worries me in is civil liberty, not so much individual freedom. No Tory government, regardless of strength of majority, is going to reverse the social trends of the past two decades. What I could see happening though, is a large scale terror attack, or more worryingly a series of small scale ones, which tax the patience and confidence of the electorate to the extent that May feels empowered to move towards the kind of state of permanent emergency that France has been enduring, and with her in power, I think that could mean a very dark time for civil and political freedom.

Also, how do you put sections of text in a spoiler box?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 14:38:27


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Also, how do you put sections of text in a spoiler box?


1. Select/highlight the text and click the Spoiler button.

2. Click at the beginning of the text, and click the Spoiler button. This inserts the opening tag code [spoiler]. Then click at the end of the text and click the Spoiler button, which has now changed to Spoiler*. This inserts the closing tag code. [/ spoiler]

3. Or you can enter the tags manually by typing the tag codes.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 14:56:11


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39756016

For feths sake!

Looks like I'm stocking up on rotten eggs, rancid veg and burning bags of dog gak should this lying sack of gak show his face around here.
Why doesn't the scouse ladypart just feth off back to where he came from.


You have my condolences.

Still, you have to feel sorry for the good people of Stoke. Despite only spending ten minutes there, he laid down deep roots and built many a life-long friendship with the good people of Stoke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


That ship has sailed. It's been signed, sealed, and delivered by Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth has put pen to paper. We're leaving the EU.

Any talk of a second referendum is nonsense or a cynical move by the Lib Dems to get votes.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 16:11:05


Post by: Whirlwind


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


That ship has sailed. It's been signed, sealed, and delivered by Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth has put pen to paper. We're leaving the EU.

Any talk of a second referendum is nonsense or a cynical move by the Lib Dems to get votes.


I think that is wishful thinking (never mind that as the older population die off, the younger generation are going to see getting back into the EU as a good thing). Nothing is irreversible and the trend in the polls are decidedly moving away from Brexit as a good idea. The latest polls show that the proportion of the populace thinking Brexit is a bad idea is now in the majority. As times get harder and the trend likely gets greater then whoever is in government is going to have a hard time persuading the general populace that they have the best interest at heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-poll-times_uk_5901d53ce4b081a5c0fb1e16

Effectively people are waking up to the fact that times will be harder outside the EU. Farmers now worry about how they will offset subsidies and where the seasonal employees will come from. Pret-a-manger customers wonder who's going to make their snacks and so on. People wonder how they will afford the luxuries they use to have when food prices continue to escalate etc etc.

Even if we don't have a referendum on the final options we can still have a new referendum on rejoining the EU. Don't worry wuestenfux we'll be back before you know it...



UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 16:36:22


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


That ship has sailed. It's been signed, sealed, and delivered by Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth has put pen to paper. We're leaving the EU.

Any talk of a second referendum is nonsense or a cynical move by the Lib Dems to get votes.


I think that is wishful thinking (never mind that as the older population die off, the younger generation are going to see getting back into the EU as a good thing). Nothing is irreversible and the trend in the polls are decidedly moving away from Brexit as a good idea. The latest polls show that the proportion of the populace thinking Brexit is a bad idea is now in the majority. As times get harder and the trend likely gets greater then whoever is in government is going to have a hard time persuading the general populace that they have the best interest at heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-poll-times_uk_5901d53ce4b081a5c0fb1e16



Effectively people are waking up to the fact that times will be harder outside the EU. Farmers now worry about how they will offset subsidies and where the seasonal employees will come from. Pret-a-manger customers wonder who's going to make their snacks and so on. People wonder how they will afford the luxuries they use to have when food prices continue to escalate etc etc.

Even if we don't have a referendum on the final options we can still have a new referendum on rejoining the EU. Don't worry wuestenfux we'll be back before you know it...



Is that your strategy for getting the nation back into the EU? Not great speeches or passionate debates extolling the benefits of EU membership, but hoping for old people to die off! Bloody hell!


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 16:50:46


Post by: wuestenfux


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


That ship has sailed. It's been signed, sealed, and delivered by Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth has put pen to paper. We're leaving the EU.

Any talk of a second referendum is nonsense or a cynical move by the Lib Dems to get votes.


I think that is wishful thinking (never mind that as the older population die off, the younger generation are going to see getting back into the EU as a good thing). Nothing is irreversible and the trend in the polls are decidedly moving away from Brexit as a good idea. The latest polls show that the proportion of the populace thinking Brexit is a bad idea is now in the majority. As times get harder and the trend likely gets greater then whoever is in government is going to have a hard time persuading the general populace that they have the best interest at heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-poll-times_uk_5901d53ce4b081a5c0fb1e16

Effectively people are waking up to the fact that times will be harder outside the EU. Farmers now worry about how they will offset subsidies and where the seasonal employees will come from. Pret-a-manger customers wonder who's going to make their snacks and so on. People wonder how they will afford the luxuries they use to have when food prices continue to escalate etc etc.

Even if we don't have a referendum on the final options we can still have a new referendum on rejoining the EU. Don't worry wuestenfux we'll be back before you know it...


I hope UK will be back in the (near) future.
Globalization is something you have to deal with. The younger people seem to be more able to cope with this than the elder ones.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 16:54:24


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...

There is some truth in that.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 17:24:08


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...

There is some truth in that.


I skipped socialism entirely. I credit New Labour with that.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 17:25:00


Post by: Formosa


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...

There is some truth in that.


I was a conservative but the older i have gotten the more liberal i have gotten, but i know exactly what you mean and i think its more true that most realise.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 18:43:15


Post by: Future War Cultist


Of course kids and teenagers want socialism. They're used to someone else always paying for their gak. The realities of a job and paying taxes and a mortgage usually knocks that out of them. Except for a few sad acts like Jermony Corbyn who just can't give it up.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 19:18:31


Post by: Kilkrazy


 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


Given that the Article 50 process is irrevocable, the UK will leave the EU one way or another in slightly under 2 years whoever is elected and whatever happens in the exit negotiations.

If you want to register disapproval of leaving the EU, the Liberal-Democrat Party is running its campaign on that basis.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 19:27:16


Post by: Ketara


My choices are between:-

-The party who places politics and the macro above the personal and the micro, who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
-A party split between people like the previous one, a few hippies and a number of hardcore pseudo-socialist bastards.
-A rabble of ostensibly liberal hypocrites who'd do anything to get another sniff of power.

and....that's it. What a time to be alive.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 20:09:28


Post by: Whirlwind


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Is that your strategy for getting the nation back into the EU? Not great speeches or passionate debates extolling the benefits of EU membership, but hoping for old people to die off! Bloody hell!


There's no need for strategy from this perspective. The older and less educated generally voted for Leave and younger and better educated generally voted Remain based on all the polls and analysis. As a population we are generally becoming more educated especially with the younger generation. As such as the older population pass away that will leave a larger and larger proportion of better educated populace. That would imply that being part of the EU will become more popular in time. Indeed, we've run the statistics before and it the turning point might only be in 10 years time. If the referendum had been held back for another two GEs then we might not be in this sorry mess to start with. It's not a strategy more a reflection of that we all get older and eventually peg it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
As a stupid European, can you vote for remain?
Or are all votes for leave anyway?


Given that the Article 50 process is irrevocable, the UK will leave the EU one way or another in slightly under 2 years whoever is elected and whatever happens in the exit negotiations.

If you want to register disapproval of leaving the EU, the Liberal-Democrat Party is running its campaign on that basis.


I didn't think this had been confirmed and that there was some question as to whether it could be withdrawn (because the legal text is quiet on the issue)?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 20:39:20


Post by: wuestenfux


This process is not irreversible as said by some EU official.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 21:06:02


Post by: Ketara


 Whirlwind wrote:


There's no need for strategy from this perspective. The older and less educated generally voted for Leave and younger and better educated generally voted Remain based on all the polls and analysis. As a population we are generally becoming more educated especially with the younger generation. As such as the older population pass away that will leave a larger and larger proportion of better educated populace. That would imply that being part of the EU will become more popular in time. Indeed, we've run the statistics before and it the turning point might only be in 10 years time. If the referendum had been held back for another two GEs then we might not be in this sorry mess to start with. It's not a strategy more a reflection of that we all get older and eventually peg it!


I'm afraid your analysis is coloured by your personal hopes in this regard. The longer we are out of Europe, the less young people will care about it, or even remember having been in it. That will remove it as an immediate political issue, and as young people rarely vote, the young people of tomorrow are unlikely to have a particularly loud voice one way or another.

What's more, those who voted for it now will in turn grow older, and likely vote more conservatively (judging by normal voter demographics). Assuming the country hasn't fallen apart (a reasonable assumption judging by the face we've had a continuous government since Cromwell), there'll be other more pressing political issues playing on their mind then signing back up to European bureaucracy.

Finally, you're assuming that what the EU turns into will be something that a) well educated liberal types would want to be part of, and b) that indeed anyone would want to be part of. The EU of today bears absolutely no resemblance to that of thirty years ago; there's no telling what it could look like in another twenty five. It could be a dictatorship, have crashed and burned, or (more likely) have unified into something more akin to an individual nation-state.

Personally, I reckon that if they go for the two track Europe solution (with the outer level being primarily economic), we might well sign up to that in a decade or two, once everything is laid out properly. But I think any possibility of us throwing ourselves wholeheartedly into the great European integration project has died for the next century or so.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 21:49:24


Post by: Kilkrazy


One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 21:51:27


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Kilkrazy wrote:
One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.


Sure, if you assume that in 10 years time the EU won't be even more dreadful than it is now, prompting those same people to look at the countries suffering under the EU (Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary etc) and go "Nope!".


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 22:02:52


Post by: Future War Cultist


For all we know, the end of the EU might even begin after the French presidential election.

Also, they want the rights of EU citizens here to be respected after leaving. Absolutely fine, provided the UK citizens in other eu countries get the same. We wanted this from the start but they wouldn't talk about it until me made it official. Just do it.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 22:11:52


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


We should not be giving away freebies, so no. If the EU wants something from us, they should reciprocate.

If they want to spite and punish us, we should reciprocate.

If they want to "make an example" of us to intimidate and deter other member states from leaving (Greece, France etc), we should refuse to meekly accept that, and feth them over in kind.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 22:16:46


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We should not be giving away freebies, so no. If the EU wants something from us, they should reciprocate.

If they want to spite and punish us, we should reciprocate.

If they want to "make an example" of us to intimidate and deter other member states from leaving (Greece, France etc), we should refuse to meekly accept that, and feth them over in kind.


Oh yeah, I completely agree. All I was saying that it should be quid pro quo. If they agree to protect our citizens we should do the same for them. Like for like. However...if they demand that we protect their citizens whilst they punish ours...they can go eat gak. Same for anything else.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 22:35:57


Post by: Ketara


Kilkrazy wrote:One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.


I'm sure they will have done. I'm reasonably sure that most young people will have forgotten all about it, both good and bad, will be playing Call of Duty: Hammer of War and Final Fantasy XVIII, and complaining about university fees and evil Tories/New Labour. The status quo will be the new normality, and assuming the country hasn't broken down, there will be no impetus for them to care about joining the European project or not.

The only way we'll be rejoining is if we launch into fifteen long years of endless political and economic depression and strife. Which, frankly, I don't see happening, our economy simply isn't that vulnerable.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 23:28:26


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/29 23:34:56


Post by: jhe90


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We should not be giving away freebies, so no. If the EU wants something from us, they should reciprocate.

If they want to spite and punish us, we should reciprocate.

If they want to "make an example" of us to intimidate and deter other member states from leaving (Greece, France etc), we should refuse to meekly accept that, and feth them over in kind.


Oh yeah, I completely agree. All I was saying that it should be quid pro quo. If they agree to protect our citizens we should do the same for them. Like for like. However...if they demand that we protect their citizens whilst they punish ours...they can go eat gak. Same for anything else.


Agreeed if they promise protection, we promise them. Its simpley fair.
No foreign citizen should have more protection than our own.
To guarantee the protection of ours is to there's.

Equal, fair, but not rolling over.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 06:37:44


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.


Sure, if you assume that in 10 years time the EU won't be even more dreadful than it is now, prompting those same people to look at the countries suffering under the EU (Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary etc) and go "Nope!".


Or you could look back 10 years at the excellent situation many EU countries had before the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, and decide to put the blame on that, not on the EU, and find that after another 10 years of recovery, things are looking great. You could also look at the enormous progress in development in countries like Poland over 20 years, and think that the EU is not actually dreadful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?


The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.

The "Daily Heil" ignored all of that in favour of spreading lies about bendy banana bans.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 06:51:37


Post by: wuestenfux


At the end of the day, the EU is great achievement if you live in central Europe. No passport if you go to a neighboring country and if you go to vacation (Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal), you have the same currency.
The EU is also great in a globalized world. I've read that 75% of the parts of the Astra/Vauxhall made in UK come from outside of UK. For other cars made in UK the percentage is a bit lower, about 65%. This is fine in a global world.
What worries me are political leaders or parties who/which want to turn back time and think that protectionism is the way to go. Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Farrage, and the German AfD are all bad examples.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 07:24:58


Post by: GoatboyBeta


 Kilkrazy wrote:
One might as easily say that in 10 years people will have forgotten how dreadful it was being in the EU.


IMO something similar is partially driving this new nationalism. All the bad about a divided Europe has been ignored in favour of a rose tinted view of how things used to be, and combined with a focus on the EU's(many) flaws over its benefit's.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 08:48:35


Post by: jouso


 Kilkrazy wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?


The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.


And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.




UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:28:22


Post by: Whirlwind


 Ketara wrote:


your analysis is coloured by your personal hopes in this regard. The longer we are out of Europe, the less young people will care about it, or even remember having been in it. That will remove it as an immediate political issue, and as young people rarely vote, the young people of tomorrow are unlikely to have a particularly loud voice one way or another.


That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens. If that was the case UKIP would never have been started 26 years ago and we would still be in the UK. It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).

What's more, those who voted for it now will in turn grow older, and likely vote more conservatively (judging by normal voter demographics). Assuming the country hasn't fallen apart (a reasonable assumption judging by the face we've had a continuous government since Cromwell), there'll be other more pressing political issues playing on their mind then signing back up to European bureaucracy.


We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future. There's a substantial shift of views on the EU between the under 40's and over 40's which is about the point that education became more open. Whether that is because they have a better education or have been exposed to a broader range of cultures and hence the protectionist and isolationist views that humans can harbour are more constrained is probably a topic for research. However it is almost certainly that the Leave vote was won because a fraction (but significant one) were generally bigoted/anti-immigration and those concerns are much less prevalent in the current younger population as they have grown up in such a society - that in itself may result is swing to being in the EU as the 'fears' over migration weaken. If this education level continues to have an influence on peoples thinking then it will only be in the next 20 years or so that we will see how this feeds into the 'new' older generations political views. If I was to hazard a guess I'd say you a right that people become more conservative but only in the perspective of changing their views on the world and that the older the generation the more set those views become.

Finally, you're assuming that what the EU turns into will be something that a) well educated liberal types would want to be part of, and b) that indeed anyone would want to be part of. The EU of today bears absolutely no resemblance to that of thirty years ago; there's no telling what it could look like in another twenty five. It could be a dictatorship, have crashed and burned, or (more likely) have unified into something more akin to an individual nation-state.


Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply. I think your view that the UK populace won't want to be part of the EU again for the better part of a century is rather pessimistic given that it is only 40 years since we were asked the last time. There's a higher probability of an individual nation state becoming a dictatorship especially when you get circumstances where a biased media favours a certain group and there calculated actions to isolate themselves from the public at large so they can't be questioned....oh wait....



UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:34:53


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Theresa May was in Aberdeen yesterday on the campaign trail.

When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.

When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.

Can I survive 7 more weeks of this


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:37:37


Post by: jhe90


jouso wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?


The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.


And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.




Aye it began as a smaller central Europe trade block.
All economies around same level with similar attributes and nations.

Then its grown a long way from there to point they considered letting Turkey join, a curency, passport free travel, super state, parliments, and covers 27 nations of various economic levels.

The things is maybe it has grown too big...
Trade yeah, it did not have to become a political super state and consider founding its own combined nation armed forces.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:38:48


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...

There is some truth in that.


I skipped socialism entirely. I credit New Labour with that.


New Labour was a never a socialist party - Clause IV was ditched early on by Blair.

Love him or loathe him, Corbyn scares the hell out of the Blairites because he reminds them of what they used to be: a party that stood up for something, full of people who meant what they said.

If the Tories and Labour had proper ideological foundations, like what they used to have, instead of this centre ground nonsense we've had for the last 20 years, I think the country would be in a better shape.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:40:48


Post by: Whirlwind


 Kilkrazy wrote:


The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.

The "Daily Heil" ignored all of that in favour of spreading lies about bendy banana bans.



That's because people from the government to individuals want to divest themselves of responsibility. Hence the EU became a punching bag that couldn't fight back on such issues - it was too easy. Hence the issues for small scale fishermen was all the EUs fault because of the limitations placed to keep things sustainable based on scientific evidence rather than that the UK government awarded 85% of fishing rights to large multinational companies. The 'wonky' fruit and veg was all the EU's fault rather than that we as consumers kept buying standardised, cosmetically pleasing products and the supermarkets and food chains were happy to do this because it made packaging and transport easier and the retailers had to worry less about waste space.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/supermarkets-urged-boost-wonky-veg-sales-combat-growing-food-waste-problem_uk_59030f76e4b02655f83b970b?e6q&utm_hp_ref=uk

However the Daily Fail were happy to spout such nonsense because their owners/editors etc have a vested interest in a certain outcome so they can benefit.



UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:41:12


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Formosa wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It has often been said that young people love socialism, then they get jobs and property as they get older, and then become Conservatives...

There is some truth in that.


I was a conservative but the older i have gotten the more liberal i have gotten, but i know exactly what you mean and i think its more true that most realise.


I think that was Thatcher's plan all those years ago: let people buy their council houses and turn them into Conservatives.

In our multi-party democracy, there is nothing wrong with being a Conservative (although I don't like them myself)

but it was short term thinking, and 30 years on, we're in a major housing crisis because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@whirlwind

It's a fair point about the rise of a pro-EU younger generation, but don't forget those young people will be old themselves one day, and like I said earlier, the older you get, the more conservative people generally get, and yes, there will always be exceptions to the norm.

None the less, it's not as clear cut as younger people taking us back into the EU in 10 years time. Assuming there is still an EU in 10 years.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 09:45:35


Post by: Whirlwind


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Theresa May was in Aberdeen yesterday on the campaign trail.

When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.

When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.

Can I survive 7 more weeks of this


What May is doing a fiasco and a farce. It's making a mockery of any idea that she has any interest in the populaces views at larger and much prefers to hide behind closed door events because it might do her some political harm in doing so. To me this implies she is a coward at heart and fears facing people that might challenge her and her views

The question is then, do we really want a coward trying to undertake complex negotiations with the EU and across the world?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@whirlwind

It's a fair point about the rise of a pro-EU younger generation, but don't forget those young people will be old themselves one day, and like I said earlier, the older you get, the more conservative people generally get, and yes, there will always be exceptions to the norm.

None the less, it's not as clear cut as younger people taking us back into the EU in 10 years time. Assuming there is still an EU in 10 years.


I think the question is whether the increase in education levels will change that dynamic as we have never been in a position where there is a significant variation in the education levels between the older and younger generation and this might have unforeseen consequences. Additionally do people become more conservative as a whole or more conservative to changing their views? The latter would imply that for the next generation of older people will have entrenched pro-EU views. You could look at France as an example, there it's the older generation that are pro-EU and there is more scepticism in the younger generation. There was an interview on the BBC the other day and one of the younger people noted (in summary) that the older generation were more fearful of the past and wanted to avoid a repeat of the 1940's and that the younger generation were less scared of wars as the older generation is (I found the comment slightly disconcerting tbh).


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 10:23:01


Post by: Ketara


 Whirlwind wrote:

That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens.

In all seriousness, have you seen the attention span of the general public? And then the attention span of young people on top of that? There's a reason young people don't turn out to vote, they're too busy getting drunk, laid, and generally entertaining themselves with far more pleasant matters than things they know they don't particularly understand. Sure, there's always the exceptions (I was probably one of them), but the vast majority of 'young' people don't give a crap about anything that doesn't directly affect them (ala student loans).

It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).


Hence my comment about us rejoining something half-way if it looks like it makes good economic sense.

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.

We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future.

You appear to be saying that your hope this will happen is based upon a prediction around a topic where you say you yourself 'don't know' what will happen. That's why I'm picking it out. You're hoping for a demographic shift in voting patterns different to those of the last fifty years with no real evidence as of yet beyond your own hopes and predictions.


Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply.

In which case I doubt anyone will care much one way or the other. Unless it either literally transforms into utopia or we descend into hell, there's no real motivation for anyone to care a huge amount. The EU was alright, but it has a crapton of ups and downs. It's not this magical grail shaped beacon which all young people will be instinctively drawn to. It's a bunch of elderly men sitting in a room espousing vague free trade policies whilst trying to plan a superstate. You're letting the fact you think it's the dog's bollocks in many regards make you assume that a significant number of people in the future will see it in the same way as you.

When in reality? I suspect they'll look at it like they do the USA. A foreign political grouping with its ups and its downs. But certainly not something to feel strongly enough about to let it dictate their voting tendencies, not when the Tory Party is trying to pass the law which allows tellies to watch us in the name of fighting terrorism or Labour's just raised the beer duty by 2%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Theresa May was in Aberdeen yesterday on the campaign trail.

When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.

When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.

Can I survive 7 more weeks of this


They all do it. Remember Broon and Gillian Duffy? All politicians want a carefully choreographed performance in an election runup. If you have a loud argument with a member of the general public, it's guaranteed to be front page the next day, and almost equally guaranteed to paint you in a bad light and hurt your odds. Corbyn and Farron will have retinues keeping away the punters just as enthusiastically.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 10:41:53


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:

That makes the assumption that we will just get on with things and forget what happens.

In all seriousness, have you seen the attention span of the general public? And then the attention span of young people on top of that? There's a reason young people don't turn out to vote, they're too busy getting drunk, laid, and generally entertaining themselves with far more pleasant matters than things they know they don't particularly understand. Sure, there's always the exceptions (I was probably one of them), but the vast majority of 'young' people don't give a crap about anything that doesn't directly affect them (ala student loans).

It's also not the young people of tomorrow you have to worry about, it's the young people of today that will be older generation (and more likely to vote). If they continue to hold the same views of Europe (and lets not forget people always think it is greener on the other side) and an endless barrage of "well we did vote to leave the EU" then you see a substantial shift towards wanting to rejoin the EU. That shift is already happening as people wake up to the implications of leaving in that more people now think leaving the EU is worse than remaining (ignoring the don't knows that seems pretty stagnant).


Hence my comment about us rejoining something half-way if it looks like it makes good economic sense.

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.

We don't really know this because the education demographics are changing when you consider education levels. It has only been in the last 20 or so years where university education has been made available to the larger proportion of the population (one of the good things labour encouraged) and that in itself could drive a different set of politics in the future.

You appear to be saying that your hope this will happen is based upon a prediction around a topic where you say you yourself 'don't know' what will happen. That's why I'm picking it out. You're hoping for a demographic shift in voting patterns different to those of the last fifty years with no real evidence as of yet beyond your own hopes and predictions.


Or alternatively it could just be like now, where there is a set of common guidelines that the countries comply with (so for example emissions from energy form waste facilities) but how they out those in practice is something for the individual countries to apply.

In which case I doubt anyone will care much one way or the other. Unless it either literally transforms into utopia or we descend into hell, there's no real motivation for anyone to care a huge amount. The EU was alright, but it has a crapton of ups and downs. It's not this magical grail shaped beacon which all young people will be instinctively drawn to. It's a bunch of elderly men sitting in a room espousing vague free trade policies whilst trying to plan a superstate. You're letting the fact you think it's the dog's bollocks in many regards make you assume that a significant number of people in the future will see it in the same way as you.

When in reality? I suspect they'll look at it like they do the USA. A foreign political grouping with its ups and its downs. But certainly not something to feel strongly enough about to let it dictate their voting tendencies, not when the Tory Party is trying to pass the law which allows tellies to watch us in the name of fighting terrorism or Labour's just raised the beer duty by 2%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Theresa May was in Aberdeen yesterday on the campaign trail.

When I say Aberdeen, I mean small isolated village 20 miles outside Aberdeen.

When I say campaign trail, I mean isolated event packed with party members asking softball questions, with a few sympathetic journalists there to offer up lavish praise.

Can I survive 7 more weeks of this


They all do it. Remember Broon and Gillian Duffy? All politicians want a carefully choreographed performance in an election runup. If you have a loud argument with a member of the general public, it's guaranteed to be front page the next day, and almost equally guaranteed to paint you in a bad light and hurt your odds. Corbyn and Farron will have retinues keeping away the punters just as enthusiastically.


Was that the Gordon Brown that bloody woman moment that put a huge dent In his campaign for a while.

Yeah, unplanned events have some serious risks.
You say the wrong thing in digital world... Everyone will know.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 10:52:26


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


In response to the above posts, yes there is a risk with engaging with the general public, but on the other hand, this type of action only reinforces the idea of the Westminster bubble, which has resulted in general apathy to politics and low turnouts with each passing year.

A balance needs to be struck between engagement and hiding away in a Scottish forest!


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 11:30:43


Post by: reds8n


https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/theresa-may-says-there-are-many-complex-reasons-why-nurses?utm_term=.vtoA11OlYd#.jr6Q006xRa


..tourism ?

Fashion ?

My mouth genuine;y fell open when I watched her say it.




But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?



Pot == kettle.


meanwhile ...

Spoiler:






2017 really is very odd indeed.








UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 19:21:59


Post by: Kilkrazy


Another thing that has angered me is the Tories' promise to address the problem of companies playing fast and loose with their employees' pension schemes.

The first major instance of this kind of scandal was Robert Maxwell in 1991-92. There have been a number of massive instances since, the latest being the collapse of British Home Stores with a £500 M+ hole in its pension scheme remarkably similar in size to the £500+ M of cash that "Sir" Philip Green extracted from the company and put into his Monaco resident non-tax paying wife's name over several years before selling the company for £1 to a failed bankrupt with no experience in the retail business and then saying none of it was his fault.

OK, Labour and Conservative governments, you've had 25 years to do something about this and you haven't. Why should anyone believe either of you now?


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 22:09:54


Post by: r_squared


Theresa May guarantees absolutely that the conservatives definitely will not be raising VAT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39761740

So, anyone believe that then?

Infact, I'm pretty sure that I'd have a hard time believing anything this woman says. She U turns on pretty much anything, and has the principles and courage of an alley cat. How anyone can think she's a good fit for the forthcoming negotiations is beyond me.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 22:15:40


Post by: GoatboyBeta


 r_squared wrote:
Theresa May guarantees absolutely that the conservatives definitely will not be raising VAT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39761740

So, anyone believe that then?


Not unless its actually written in there manifesto no. Even then only if they think it will cause a stink in the press like the NI changes they tried to get in the budget.


UK Politics @ 2017/04/30 22:34:26


Post by: r_squared


GoatboyBeta wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
Theresa May guarantees absolutely that the conservatives definitely will not be raising VAT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39761740

So, anyone believe that then?


Not unless its actually written in there manifesto no. Even then only if they think it will cause a stink in the press like the NI changes they tried to get in the budget.


I wouldn't believe it if it was carved in stone by a deity of your choice. VAT rises fit Tory ideology perfectly. Maximum revenue, minimum impact on their party donors and the "wealth creators".


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 06:52:07


Post by: Herzlos


Maximum shafting of the poor too.

I wouldn't be against some either tiers of VAT (say, 15% on goods up to £500 then 25%) or adding a new 25% category for super luxury items.

That said, dropping it to 15 or 17.5% would get more money moving again and probably bring in more tax


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 07:58:49


Post by: reds8n


https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/#160de32c4f04



The UK’s eventual exit from the EU is looking more and more likely to be a train wreck. The Brexiteers in Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration are living in a fantasy world. And although May herself comes across as sensible and pragmatic, it now appears that she is as deluded as they are.

Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.

The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least from the European Commission’s point of view, has only just been revealed.

As is its wont, the Commission has expressed its anger in the press. Although it has previously used the British press to communicate its views on Brexit, this time it has opted to use a German newspaper. An article in the print edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) reveals details of the proceedings at the dinner. It is in German. There is no English translation. Nor is there a complete online version of the article.

Releasing details of the dinner to a German newspaper for printing in German only is a slap in the face for May and her team. The Commission, it seems, is very angry indeed.

Jeremy Cliffe, The Economist’s Berlin bureau chief, tweeted the salient points from the FAZ article. They are absolutely damning. No wonder the Commission is angry. Here they are, transcribed.

Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.

May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.

May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.

It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.

EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.

Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.

May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).

May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).

May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.

It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.

EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.

Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.

May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).

May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).



original thread :

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858810953353367552

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/eu-kommission-skeptisch-vor-brexit-verhandlungen-14993673.html
awesome.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 08:09:05


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Are telivised debates going to happen now? Or are both May and Corbyn not prepared to play ball. Disgusting really. If they can't face each other and our public, then how can they be trusted to face the EU?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 08:51:38


Post by: GoatboyBeta


 reds8n wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/#160de32c4f04

awesome.


When the government seems to have done less planning for brexit then GW have done for 8th ed 40K


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 09:32:27


Post by: r_squared


Spoiler:
 reds8n wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/#160de32c4f04



The UK’s eventual exit from the EU is looking more and more likely to be a train wreck. The Brexiteers in Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration are living in a fantasy world. And although May herself comes across as sensible and pragmatic, it now appears that she is as deluded as they are.

Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.

The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least from the European Commission’s point of view, has only just been revealed.

As is its wont, the Commission has expressed its anger in the press. Although it has previously used the British press to communicate its views on Brexit, this time it has opted to use a German newspaper. An article in the print edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) reveals details of the proceedings at the dinner. It is in German. There is no English translation. Nor is there a complete online version of the article.

Releasing details of the dinner to a German newspaper for printing in German only is a slap in the face for May and her team. The Commission, it seems, is very angry indeed.

Jeremy Cliffe, The Economist’s Berlin bureau chief, tweeted the salient points from the FAZ article. They are absolutely damning. No wonder the Commission is angry. Here they are, transcribed.

Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.

May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems; but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.

May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.

It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.

EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.

Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.

May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).

May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).

May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be reelected as PM.

It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.

May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ case against her data retention measures-three times.

EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg on rights to health care.

Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal, Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.

May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks; all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states & European Parliament, so documents must be published.

EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses. "Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs union: "Brexit cannot be a success".

May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared. I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.

"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was only half way through the dinner).

May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.

Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).



original thread :

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858810953353367552

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/eu-kommission-skeptisch-vor-brexit-verhandlungen-14993673.html
awesome.


You missed page 2...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/2/#6e1138322c25

Jeremy Cliffe's thread continues:

"I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told May as he left.

Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself. Merkel quickly reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in Britain still have illusions" comment.

FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?

Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.

What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless. The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through. Presumably as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.

Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10 should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak.

Sorry for the long thread. And a reminder: full credit for all the above reporting on the May/Juncker dinner goes to the FAZ.

Cliffe's analysis (third paragraph from the end) implies that May has made a terrible mistake. She has put hardline Brexiteers in charge of negotiating the UK's exit from the EU and its new trade relationships after Brexit. They appear to be systematically deceiving her. As a result, she is not in possession of the true facts.

Presumably these wrecking tactics are intended to further the Brexiteers' real aim of a no-deal exit from the EU - the so-called 'clean Brexit'. But the cost of such an exit for the UK would be terrible. Such behaviour from the Brexiteers is unbelievably irresponsible. And it undermines May's own credibility, just as she is seeking a new mandate from the British people to strengthen her hand in the negotiations.

If the UK is to secure the smoothest possible end to the UK's membership of the EU and the best possible relationship between the UK and the EU in the future, the British team must conduct the negotiations in good faith and with good will. The Brexiteers have demonstrated neither. May must sack them.


It's a damning read, and considering her actions, entirely credible. A hard right, hard brexit forced on the nation by a handful of fantasist idealogues is a sure way to utterly crash the economy.
And to what account can we hold these arseholes? If they drag the UK down, they will just slink off elsewhere, insulated by their wealth and connections, just like Farage.
feth Brexit, and feth Brexiteers.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 10:24:04


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Let's hang on here for a minute. My loathing of all things Conservative is well known on these boards, and I'll declare up front that Juncker represents everything that is wrong with the EU,

But this is only one side of the story - Juncker's side.

I don't doubt that May is living in a fantasy realm with regards to Brexit, but I would be cautious of automatically buying anything that Juncker said, either.

There are two sides to every story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Are telivised debates going to happen now? Or are both May and Corbyn not prepared to play ball. Disgusting really. If they can't face each other and our public, then how can they be trusted to face the EU?


Well said.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 10:53:59


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 r_squared wrote:
feth Brexit, and feth Brexiteers.


Awww. We love you too.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 11:09:50


Post by: wuestenfux


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
feth Brexit, and feth Brexiteers.


Awww. We love you too.

Seconded.
The worst of the worst would be a clean brexit.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 11:20:05


Post by: reds8n




and feth Brexiteers


can we please not make comments like this.

Really not going to contribute towards any sort of discussion.




UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 18:57:00


Post by: Kilkrazy


May is pretty safe in promising not to raise VAT.

1. The UK is already beginning to experience a consumer spending downtrend caused by rising inflation caused by the weakness of the GBP caused by the Brexit vote.

An increase in VAT would only make this worse.

2. There are plenty of other taxes that can be raised.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 19:27:58


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Kilkrazy wrote:
May is pretty safe in promising not to raise VAT.

1. The UK is already beginning to experience a consumer spending downtrend caused by rising inflation caused by the weakness of the GBP caused by the Brexit vote.

An increase in VAT would only make this worse.

2. There are plenty of other taxes that can be raised.



Yup, the chickens have begun coming home to roost on this action and raising consumer-punitive taxes would be dog-piling an already bad situation.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 23:26:40


Post by: Compel


My election thoughts about back home in Scotland were:

Speaking generally and inspecifically.

People don't vote Tory, because they're rich scumbag lawyers and toffs from old money.
People don't vote Labour, because they're rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power.
People don't vote lib-dem because their airie fairy dreamer types who don't know what real life actually is like.

Meanwhile, the SNP guy, is the guy you see walking his dog down the park, who always stops for a chat, who is dealing with the same problems you are, whose kid is just out of drug rehab and wants to do right by their community.

So there's a lot of love for the SNP locally that isn't necessarily related to wanting Scotland to leave the UK.

It also makes me wonder why those sorts of candidates haven't really been generated elsewhere in the UK. It seems to me those caricatures (for want of a better word) aren't too dissimilar to what I'm hear the regular grumbles about.

One would think that UKIP would be it, but they're typically seen as "jerkier tories." With the Greens as Lib Dems with an even more tenuous grasp on reality.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/01 23:51:48


Post by: Vaktathi


 Compel wrote:
My election thoughts about back home in Scotland were:

Speaking generally and inspecifically.

People don't vote Tory, because they're rich scumbag lawyers and toffs from old money.
People don't vote Labour, because they're rich scumbag pawns of union bosses that have bribed their way to power.
People don't vote lib-dem because their airie fairy dreamer types who don't know what real life actually is like.

Meanwhile, the SNP guy, is the guy you see walking his dog down the park, who always stops for a chat, who is dealing with the same problems you are, whose kid is just out of drug rehab and wants to do right by their community.

So there's a lot of love for the SNP locally that isn't necessarily related to wanting Scotland to leave the UK.

It also makes me wonder why those sorts of candidates haven't really been generated elsewhere in the UK.
Usually because those types cease to be able to survive (metaphorically speaking) for long once they're in power. Either because they get pushed out once there is access to the "big leagues", or the simple realities of success and operating and higher levels of government inherently draw out certain kinds of behaviors in anyone, and once that has set in it's impossible for those types to rise again within that same group.

The SNP is (relatively) young and has only recently generated significant success, at least electorally speaking. They can still afford to have the "Everyday" types around.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 06:00:00


Post by: Jadenim


I personally think that a lot of the problems in our political system come from having "professional" politicians; an MP is supposed to be a representative of the area, not a lifelong career.

Now I know that historically there have been some great backbenchers, who've dedicated their lives to their constituency, but these days it's all about the trained politicians. They go and do that specific social economics degree at Oxford (I forget the name), join a political party of their choice (by rolling a dice as much as any ideological leaning it seems) and get parachuted into a safe seat to be elected. No life experience, no alternative skills or training and no connection to the area they represent.

I would much rather that a) you have to have lived in an area for at least 5-years before you can represent it as an MP and b) have a 2 or 3-term limit, so that you can't spend your whole life being an MP. I hope that would get more "Everyman" politicians and should also stop the massive groupthink problems we have because nobody in Parliament has an alternative viewpoint/background/experience.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 08:06:53


Post by: jhe90


 Jadenim wrote:
I personally think that a lot of the problems in our political system come from having "professional" politicians; an MP is supposed to be a representative of the area, not a lifelong career.

Now I know that historically there have been some great backbenchers, who've dedicated their lives to their constituency, but these days it's all about the trained politicians. They go and do that specific social economics degree at Oxford (I forget the name), join a political party of their choice (by rolling a dice as much as any ideological leaning it seems) and get parachuted into a safe seat to be elected. No life experience, no alternative skills or training and no connection to the area they represent.

I would much rather that a) you have to have lived in an area for at least 5-years before you can represent it as an MP and b) have a 2 or 3-term limit, so that you can't spend your whole life being an MP. I hope that would get more "Everyman" politicians and should also stop the massive groupthink problems we have because nobody in Parliament has an alternative viewpoint/background/experience.


Having to have lived in area is not a too big ask id agree. Also means they can learn it's problems and issues and then better represent them and improve the areas lie, economics or whatever else it needs.

Term limits, defenitely 4 max. If your not a senior gov monster or somthibf in 20 years.. Your probbly not gonna be.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 08:49:37


Post by: Steve steveson


For me party politics is also a big issue. Time and again politicians put party before their constituents. I think we should ban party whips and introduce the right of constituents to recall MPs. They should have more accountability to the people who voted for them and the party should have less control over them. Reduce the presidential attitude that is coming to PMs now and increase accountability.

Term limit should probably be a time limit, to account for snap elections and MPs elected at by-election. Perhaps a limit of the first election after 20 years?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 09:36:44


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.


I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 10:07:10


Post by: Skullhammer


I was going to keep out of this thread but Abbotts had a car crash interview....

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-02/diane-abbott-suggests-10-000-new-police-officers-pledged-by-labour-to-earn-30-per-year-in-interview-gaffe/

I listened to this live....


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 10:14:11


Post by: Steve steveson


I can't help seeing Diane Abbot as the BoJo of the left.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 11:13:16


Post by: Kilkrazy


She was better this morning than in last week's interview.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 12:57:25


Post by: Jadenim


 Steve steveson wrote:
For me party politics is also a big issue. Time and again politicians put party before their constituents. I think we should ban party whips and introduce the right of constituents to recall MPs. They should have more accountability to the people who voted for them and the party should have less control over them. Reduce the presidential attitude that is coming to PMs now and increase accountability.

Term limit should probably be a time limit, to account for snap elections and MPs elected at by-election. Perhaps a limit of the first election after 20 years?



Abolitioning party whips is something I also agree with, but I can see that being a harder "sell" to the public; look at how much flak Labour are getting at the moment because of the perceived lack of control Corbyn has.


Edited to use the right quote...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 13:01:29


Post by: jouso


 jhe90 wrote:
jouso wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Ultimately this whole mess can be attributed to the blind and ideologically stubborn insistence of European Union leaders to push full European integration on all member states without any consideration of alternatives, such as a two tier Europe with varying degrees of political and economic integration to suit the differing attitudes, values and desires of the various member states. If such an alternative had been in place already, instead of the current One Size Fits All policy, then the UK might not have voted to withdraw (because we would have been in the lower Tier), and the integrity of the EU as a whole would not currently be at jeopardy.

One could also argue the same applies to Scotland and Westminster.

But hey, why take an introspective look at yourselves when you can just blame the scapegoat of the "Daily Heil"?


The EU already has different 'tiers' in respect of membership of the Euro, Schengen, exceptions to directives like the Working Time Directive, the status of Norway and Switzerland, blah di blah, and other examples where the UK and other member states negotiated a different arrangement to the straight EU line.


And do not forget that the UK did put themselves into the whole EU thing. The UK was a founding member of the EFTA whose sole and only scope was free trade, they could have stayed there and everyone would be happier.




Aye it began as a smaller central Europe trade block.
All economies around same level with similar attributes and nations.

Then its grown a long way from there to point they considered letting Turkey join, a curency, passport free travel, super state, parliments, and covers 27 nations of various economic levels.

The things is maybe it has grown too big...
Trade yeah, it did not have to become a political super state and consider founding its own combined nation armed forces.


But it was there. Precisely the UK founded the EFTA as an alternative to the then EEC because their implications and objectives went much farther than mere trade.

No one forced the UK to join.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 13:32:06


Post by: Ketara


Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

Prof Varoufakis, who spent months battling the debt collection policies of the EU-IMF Troika during Greece’s financial crisis, believes Brussels will exploit political divisions within Britain to reduce the chance of getting a fair Brexit deal.

After German chancellor Angela Merkel announced Britain should be more “constructive” when it comes to negotiating Brexit, Prof Varoufakis said this could be the beginning of an “EU runaround” for Theresa May.

He warned: “You won’t always know exactly who to talk to and that is deliberate.

“When you make a moderate proposal, they will react with blank stares and look at you as if you were reciting the Swedish National Anthem. It is their way of stonewalling. They will suddenly suspend talks claiming the need for more fact-checking."

“What they are trying to do is to reduce any benefit that Theresa May will get out of the election and downplay her democratic mandate.”


Since May's election campaign is focused upon this image she's trying to build of 'strong pragmatic leadership', if Juncker can undermine that and reduce her power base at home, he decreases her negotiating strength. Hence the sudden exceedingly obvious 'leaks' focused on damaging that perspective of her.

I accept that the EU has a responsibility to get the best deal for their own, but tactics like this irritate me. You don't see British Intelligence out there trying to undermine Macron.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlchemicalSolution wrote:

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.


If we fell into a severe prolonged Great Recession style economic catastrophe over the period of a decade, rejoining the EU would become a priority on the basis that we'd then be joining the Euro and eligible for payments and so forth. In other words, we'd get the stabilising effect of being part of a larger financial bloc on top of free trade.

The flip side of that coin would be that we'd, in effect, be ceding most financial independence (looking at the laid out plans for future EU financial integration) and buying into all the other problems that economic unity would bring. But if we were at the bottom of the well anyway, we wouldn't exactly have any way to go but up.

That all being said, that's all highly hypothetical, and I severely doubt Brexit will hurt us even half as bad economically as would be necessary to force us to that point.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 15:19:16


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'


Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 15:49:05


Post by: Ketara


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'


Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...


Because they're our elections. Not Brexit negotiations. They're peripheral, at best. This is like May telling intelligence to sabotage the French election to get Le Pen to help our negotiating position, or leaking embarassing details about the personal lives of the EU negotiatiors. It's that level of slightly underhanded meddling that really makes you look at them and think 'Really? You can't just sit down to the table and start negotiations like sensible, rational, and civil adults?'

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 16:17:01


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 17:18:39


Post by: Herzlos


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.


The election was triggered to bury/neuter the expenses scandal. They've got a small minority (when you consider the no-shows and rebels) and could potentially have to re-fight 30 seats and lose enough of a majority to do anything.

Though I still can't decide if she'd be happy to lose or not. I don't think she wants to lead Brexit any more than I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'


Why would you expect the EU to pull any punches in negotiations? Are the leaks untrue? We don't see British intelligence trying to undermine the EU, true. The media, on the other hand...


Because they're our elections. Not Brexit negotiations. They're peripheral, at best. This is like May telling intelligence to sabotage the French election to get Le Pen to help our negotiating position, or leaking embarassing details about the personal lives of the EU negotiatiors. It's that level of slightly underhanded meddling that really makes you look at them and think 'Really? You can't just sit down to the table and start negotiations like sensible, rational, and civil adults?'

Just because you can do a thing does not mean you should.


I don't think he's trying to influence our electrion; he's stated that the election will have no effect on Brexit - May's still got the same negotiating hand.

I see it partially as politics/sabre rattling, and partially as a man who's frustrated by the arrogance of May and Co, thinking that the EU27 will do what they're told and let May have her cake and eat it. His line along along is "This isn't going to be as simple as you think it is. There is no a la carte EU. Brexit is punishment enough", and at this stage I'm inclined to believe him - he's not done anything underhand and May/Davis/etc genuinely seem to have no clue as to what they are doing. I'd be pretty pissed off at them too.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 17:30:26


Post by: Ketara


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.


Really? They were arguing about holding an early election months ago for many reasons when Brexit still wasn'r even certain; to capitalise on Corbyn's inadequacy for one. Another has been named above.

And even if it were true, I repeat, just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could try bugging the hotel room of their negotiators, to gain an advantage, but it would be immoral. Likewise, directly spinning leaks (which may very well be completely made up) to try and influence our election is pretty damn low. Let's not forget the architect of this leak, Mr 'British deserters' Juncker. The bloke who has said such wonderful things as:-

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.


The bloke orchestrated the laws and tax haven that half the European multinationals fund their profits through, for Pete's sake. I don't understand how even people fully in favour of the EU can bear to see this man stand as the European President, he's a blight upon democracy. That's not even an insult, he's down as saying:-

I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic


He's a right royal git, and he and his ilk have done more harm to the European project and in causing the subsequent Brexit than any newspaper headline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:

I see it partially as politics/sabre rattling, and partially as a man who's frustrated by the arrogance of May and Co, thinking that the EU27 will do what they're told and let May have her cake and eat it. His line along along is "This isn't going to be as simple as you think it is. There is no a la carte EU. Brexit is punishment enough", and at this stage I'm inclined to believe him - he's not done anything underhand and May/Davis/etc genuinely seem to have no clue as to what they are doing. I'd be pretty pissed off at them too.


You honestly think that a written report about his meeting with May and his discussion with Merkel after wards just 'fell off his desk' and the binman found it later? It's not a leak, it's him ringing up a paper and saying, 'Hey, I've got a story you can run'.

With that in mind and putting the veracity to one side, you then have to question; what was the purpose? The negotiations haven't officially begun yet, they won't until after our election. It's not going to change May's mind on anything. So the timing is strange, no?

The only purpose it has, especially considering the wording, is to try and strike a blow at May's public image. Considering what the rest of Europe makes of her is pretty irrelevant right now, that narrows the audience down to one group of people: namely the British, ala the people about to go to the polls.

This is of course, without even going into whether he's telling the truth or not, and whether it would be a good or bad thing if he was.

Accordingly,considering the EU is still drawing on our public purse for its budget, to watch its President actively try and use underhanded tactics like this to try and meddle in our democratic process is pretty irritating.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 17:49:39


Post by: Whirlwind


 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.


I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?


Erm, I never said this? I think Ketara stated this not me?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 17:56:38


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Ketara wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The election is blatantly about Brexit. It wouldn't even have happened if it weren't for Brexit.


Really? They were arguing about holding an early election months ago for many reasons when Brexit still wasn'r even certain; to capitalise on Corbyn's inadequacy for one. Another has been named above.

And even if it were true, I repeat, just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could try bugging the hotel room of their negotiators, to gain an advantage, but it would be immoral. Likewise, directly spinning leaks (which may very well be completely made up) to try and influence our election is pretty damn low.


Sure, if they're making stuff up I'll happily agree with you.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 18:09:32


Post by: Whirlwind


 Ketara wrote:
Moving back onto the election, I'm somewhat irritated by Mr Juncker's hamfisted attempt to influence election matters in Britain. It's the sort of thing that makes you think you made the correct decision by voting for Brexit. It's obvious enough that even the Greeks are going 'We know what's going on here...'

I accept that the EU has a responsibility to get the best deal for their own, but tactics like this irritate me. You don't see British Intelligence out there trying to undermine Macron.


This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked. The idea that the EU is out to get us or influence the election is likely a bit far fetched - look to Russia if you want that. However they are now working to the best interest of the EU and don't have to give two toots about what the UK thinks (and I think this keeps getting buried as an inconvenient truth). That Merkel had to change her speech gives a good indication that she is telling the German people that a good deal where they can openly trade with the UK without tariffs is getting highly unlikely and things are likely to go down hill fast. Of course May can't flat out tell them they are liars if it did occurs so instead hides behind I can't recall auto button...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-jean-claude-juncker-bbc_uk_590774f3e4b0bb2d08701234?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

You can see the relations deteriorating already with May stating she is going to be a "bloody difficult woman" if the articles are to be believed. We might as well accept we are going WTO at this rate.

On the other hand when she refuses to openly debate with the public or press and basically spins the same line over and over then I can see why she isn't going to get very far with actual skilled negotiators.

On aside this is quite funny...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-cardboard-cutout_uk_5908376de4b02655f83ff48f?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Also here are a few things buried by the election..

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/awkward-buried-election_uk_59066d4be4b02655f83e5edd?utm_hp_ref=uk-news



UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 18:28:01


Post by: Darkjim


Juncker is dragged over here to deal with an issue not of his making, is looking forward to dealing with someone for the next 2 years who gets her policies from the comments sections of The Daily Express, having already heard 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and threats about withdrawal of security co-operation if Britain doesn't get it's way, has to sit in a chair possibly previously occupied by Paul Dacre when he came to tea, and he's supposed to play nice? Lol.

Loving all the faux-horror in the press at a spot of leaking though, like it isn't something we Brits do. Extralols.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 18:31:07


Post by: Ketara


 Whirlwind wrote:

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked.


If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?

I'm not really sure I can discuss this further with you if so, because that logic is loose and speculative enough to wrap my cat in. Seriously.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.

And you know what? In many cases, I agree with you! But still.

On certain issues, you just take an automatic stance, no matter how loose the logic, in order to maintain your beliefs. We've reached the stage now where I seriously believe if the government published photographic evidence and written testimonials of EU officials secretly operating death squads, you'd insist it was all a scam from the evil Empress May to distract us so she could insert a straw into our wallets and suck out the cash! And you'd believe it!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Darkjim wrote:
Juncker is dragged over here to deal with an issue not of his making, is looking forward to dealing with someone for the next 2 years who gets her policies from the comments sections of The Daily Express, having already heard 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and threats about withdrawal of security co-operation if Britain doesn't get it's way, has to sit in a chair possibly previously occupied by Paul Dacre when he came to tea, and he's supposed to play nice? Lol.

Loving all the faux-horror in the press at a spot of leaking though, like it isn't something we Brits do. Extralols.


Amazing, isn't it? It's almost as if people have different moral beliefs to you!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 18:58:17


Post by: Darkjim


Spoiler:

 Ketara wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked.


If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?

I'm not really sure I can discuss this further with you if so, because that logic is loose and speculative enough to wrap my cat in. Seriously.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.

And you know what? In some cases, I even agree with you! But still.

On certain issues, you just take an automatic stance, no matter how loose the logic, in order to maintain your beliefs. We've reached the stage now where I seriously believe if the government published photographic evidence and written testimonials of EU officials secretly operating death squads, you'd insist it was all a scam from the evil Empress May to distract us so she could insert a straw into our wallets and suck out the cash! And you'd believe it!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Darkjim wrote:
Juncker is dragged over here to deal with an issue not of his making, is looking forward to dealing with someone for the next 2 years who gets her policies from the comments sections of The Daily Express, having already heard 'No deal is better than a bad deal' and threats about withdrawal of security co-operation if Britain doesn't get it's way, has to sit in a chair possibly previously occupied by Paul Dacre when he came to tea, and he's supposed to play nice? Lol.

Loving all the faux-horror in the press at a spot of leaking though, like it isn't something we Brits do. Extralols.


Amazing, isn't it? It's almost as if people have different moral beliefs to you!


I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.

Edit - by 'too', I mean locked as well as the other one, not that you got that one locked. Poorly phrased..


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 19:01:35


Post by: Ketara


 Darkjim wrote:
[
I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

So...you're saying that there should be no consideration of morality in any of the Brexit negotiations? How very curious. Ready the Royal Navy to bombard Paris, that'll be a valuable bargaining chip!

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.


I'm entirely calm old bean, but since you appear to be new to the party, me and Whirlwind have had discussed many an item in five foot quote chains in the last thread. We generally do quite well for ourselves without wandering over the line into vulgarities or insults. Your concern is appreciated though.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 19:13:12


Post by: r_squared


 Ketara wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:

This assumes of course that May was perfectly innocent in all this. After all she was the one that invited Juncker to Downing Street to start the negotiations during the middle of the election. She did not have to do this. This didn't come about because the EU demanded the UK PM turnup at an EU conference. I could easily turn it on it's head and say this was a 'play' by Empress May to try and get some concession during the election to show how "weak and idiotic" she is and hence sell the a load of scripted twaddle to the general public. However it appears the EU weren't having any of it and went "on your bike" because whatever those terms suggested were unrealistic. Instead she failed spectacularly and tried to keep quiet, yet because the EU is a group of nations and open to all members the discussion was widely discussed and hence leaked.


If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?

I'm not really sure I can discuss this further with you if so, because that logic is loose and speculative enough to wrap my cat in. Seriously.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.

And you know what? In some cases, I even agree with you! But still.

On certain issues, you just take an automatic stance, no matter how loose the logic, in order to maintain your beliefs. We've reached the stage now where I seriously believe if the government published photographic evidence and written testimonials of EU officials secretly operating death squads, you'd insist it was all a scam from the evil Empress May to distract us so she could insert a straw into our wallets and suck out the cash! And you'd believe it!


To be fair, you have both layered your own narrative over the story, both of which are based on your own opinions, and precious few facts.

In other news, George Osborne, lady part of the year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39782600

Definitely nothing unsavory in the editor of the Evening Standard also having a £650k a year "advisory" role for a US investment firm. Did someone say urban liberal elite?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 19:16:33


Post by: Kilkrazy


Mind you, his editorial piece today was bang on. The Tories are running a campaign that basically consists of hiding the prospective PM from possible public engagement and repeating "Strong and Stable" as often as possible without mentioning any policies.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 19:18:06


Post by: Darkjim


 Ketara wrote:
 Darkjim wrote:
[
I'm not sure where morality comes into it, unless you're suggesting from the first para, that in the current situation Juncker should bring some morality to the table, despite it's utter absence in any of the discussion prior. Or from the second, that the British press are genuinely horrified at the thought of a leak? Surely not that.

So...you're saying that there should be no consideration of morality in any of the Brexit negotiations? How very curious. Ready the Royal Navy to bombard Paris, that'll be a valuable bargaining chip!

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.


I'm entirely calm old bean, but since you appear to be new to the party, me and Whirlwind have had discussed many an item in five foot quote chains in the last thread. We generally do quite well for ourselves without wandering over the line into vulgarities or insults. Your concern is appreciated though.


Pfft, you were making up song lyrics about me (and others) a week or two back, how quickly they forget ...

Certainly some consideration of morality would be very welcome, though I think there are one or two legal problems with bombing Paris, beyond the moral considerations. Do I think we will do anything we can get away with? Yup. There has been little or no morality in evidence thus far. Why would the party dragged to the table against it's will be the first to try? Perhaps if we had made any gestures of goodwill rather than weak, vague and more or less instantly retracted threats, you would have point, but all we've done thus far is turn into Farage en masse and had a collective paddy (through the medium of our proud national press) every time Johnny Foreigner has had the gall to not immediately agree to everything we demand.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 19:31:33


Post by: Future War Cultist


Junker symbolizes all that is wrong with the EU in one sweaty drunken package, and as of late he's going off the deep end. I hope Le Pen wins just to give him the big metaphorical slap across the face he so richly deserves.

Yanis Varoufakis (prat that he is) told us what we can expect from the EU during these negotations. Lots of blank stares at any request, with lots of going back and forth to 'check facts'. You'll never quite know who's doing the negotiating for them, and for some mysterious reason ( ) Merkal will be keep fully in the loop even though it's supposed to be between us and the EU itself. Just like with Cameron's...I guess the word would be negotiations. It's all a pathetic ploy to weaken the other side (us) and push towards saying sorry and coming back into the fold.

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:15:24


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Junker symbolizes all that is wrong with the EU in one sweaty drunken package, and as of late he's going off the deep end. I hope Le Pen wins just to give him the big metaphorical slap across the face he so richly deserves.

Yanis Varoufakis (prat that he is) told us what we can expect from the EU during these negotations. Lots of blank stares at any request, with lots of going back and forth to 'check facts'. You'll never quite know who's doing the negotiating for them, and for some mysterious reason ( ) Merkal will be keep fully in the loop even though it's supposed to be between us and the EU itself. Just like with Cameron's...I guess the word would be negotiations. It's all a pathetic ploy to weaken the other side (us) and push towards saying sorry and coming back into the fold.

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.


You're the one who keeps insisting that the UK has to be harsh and only look out for its own interests. Why would you expect the EU to be different?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:24:30


Post by: Kilkrazy


Cognitive Dissonance.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:45:19


Post by: Ketara


 r_squared wrote:

To be fair, you have both layered your own narrative over the story, both of which are based on your own opinions, and precious few facts.

Oh, totally. I'm perfectly happy for people to pick holes in my logic if they can though, it was only ever a theory based on the likely balance of probabilities. I mean, it is technically possible he never meant for it to leak and is firing the people responsible even as I type.

I can't say I'm entirely convinced of the likelihood of that though.

In other news, George Osborne, lady part of the year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39782600

Definitely nothing unsavory in the editor of the Evening Standard also having a £650k a year "advisory" role for a US investment firm. Did someone say urban liberal elite?

He's not bitter he got booted from the seat of power, no, not at all....

 Darkjim wrote:

Pfft, you were making up song lyrics about me (and others) a week or two back, how quickly they forget ...

Errrr.....you mean this?
"Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."

You're aware I was talking about political parties and which way to vote, right? I didn't quote anybody or target it at anyone. I'm mildly perturbed you'd go out of your way to assume it was talking about you.

Certainly some consideration of morality would be very welcome, though I think there are one or two legal problems with bombing Paris, beyond the moral considerations. Do I think we will do anything we can get away with? Yup. There has been little or no morality in evidence thus far. Why would the party dragged to the table against it's will be the first to try? Perhaps if we had made any gestures of goodwill rather than weak, vague and more or less instantly retracted threats, you would have point, but all we've done thus far is turn into Farage en masse and had a collective paddy (through the medium of our proud national press) every time Johnny Foreigner has had the gall to not immediately agree to everything we demand.

I can't recall a single item from the UK Government even beginning to cross into the realms of the rudeness Juncker's shown, along with a handful of other Eurocrats. So far, the official line has been more or less 'We want a constructive relationship, let's all get on with it'. Even now, that's what May's office is saying.

People have pointed out (fairly so) that Juncker is a figurehead, and much like Farage, gets a lot of publicity for rude comments that likely mean diddly squat in the negotiations. Frankly, if he was jumping up and down doing Hitler salutes at us and issuing voodoo curses on May, I wouldn't care. It's him trying (albeit however crudely) to interfere in the electoral process I object to. I'd say the same thing if it was America trying to tar a Mexican candidate, or (to take a real case) Russia trying to influence American elections.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:

Strange this. They were all apparently our friends right up until we couldn't stand wasting any more money on them and following their bs orders, were they've now really turned on us. The word 'users' springs to mind. Like kids who are only friends with that one other kid whilst he gives them stuff.


You're the one who keeps insisting that the UK has to be harsh and only look out for its own interests. Why would you expect the EU to be different?


I think the reason a lot of people feel surprised at the news that the EU is out to nobble us, is because a lot of people still keep insisting that it's a wonderful organisation designed to help empower and advance all of Europe for the glory and benefit of all. It's a bit hard to reconcile that with an administration, that when it hears a countries decided to up sticks and bon voyage, sets out to actively screw it over for a mixture of vengeance, advantage, and deterrent.

Don't get me wrong, I never expected any different personally, the EU is a nascent and somewhat undemocratic superpower, there was no way it was ever going to abstain from playing the Great Game with the rest of us. I think some people (both brexiters and remainers alike) who didn't quite realise the disconnect between the euro-rhetoric and reality are shocked though.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:47:36


Post by: LordofHats


 Ketara wrote:

"Petty nationalists to the left of me, self-righteous pseudo-liberals to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.....And I'm wonderin' what it is I should do..."

You're aware I was talking about political parties, right? I didn't quote anybody or target it at anyone. I'm mildly perturbed you'd go out of your way to assume it was talking about you.


The missed opportunity here man... just... so tragic...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:51:02


Post by: Kilkrazy


The objective to advance the interests of the members of the EU. That's why as soon as the UK decided to leave the EU, the EU no longer has to consider the interests of the UK as of paramount importance.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:54:12


Post by: Ketara


Certainly. And that's why we should be using every inch of leverage we have in exchange, from the security arrangements to settling rights for Poles.

I've never quite understood why so many people (I feel I should point out now that I'm targeting nobody specific here ) feel like we should cripple our own negotiating position by giving all advantages of British friendship away in the name of humanity, but expect the EU to give nothing back on the same lines.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 20:58:27


Post by: whembly


If the EU wants to be dickish towards the UK... a former colony of yours across the ocean is waiting for you with open arms.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 21:17:05


Post by: Steve steveson


 Ketara wrote:
Certainly. And that's why we should be using every inch of leverage we have in exchange, from the security arrangements to settling rights for Poles.

I've never quite understood why so many people (I feel I should point out now that I'm targeting nobody specific here ) feel like we should cripple our own negotiating position by giving all advantages of British friendship away in the name of humanity, but expect the EU to give nothing back on the same lines.


Basic humanity of not using people's lives as bargaining chips? I find it frightening that friends of mine, who have lived in the U.K. for decades, have lives, families, careers and homes here are being told that they might be thrown out of the country because of swabbing between the EU and the UK. Because people want to use those lives as a bargain chip. I don't like that we are leaving the EU, but believe that as we are we should get the best deal we can. However we should not be holding families hostage as a tool to do that.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 21:34:35


Post by: Whirlwind


 Ketara wrote:


If that's honestly what you think happened? To the extent that you'll automatically take the side of someone who publicly said they'll happily lie on serious matters? You think that the conversations between the EU president and German Chancellor are so 'widely discussed' within the space of about 48 hours, random newspapers know what was said? And that a routine unadvertised pre-meeting between (theoretically) public officials was some dastardly plot by May to somehow manipulate the EU President into giving concessions to announce even though negotiations haven't started ?


I don't know what was said I wasn't there. However the idea that Juncker was all 'bad' in this and May was all 'good' and vice versa is all ridiculous. In all likelihood there was a terse correspondence and May likely didn't get the answers she was hoping for. That probably did give the impression that she was asking the impossible and for things that simply weren't in the interest of the EU to agree to. I'd much prefer both parties came out with the text of the conversations and tell everyone what was said so we can make up our own mind on the issues. That May refuses to do this is something that she is going to have to come to terms with because the EU, being more open and transparent, are less willing to make sure everything happens behind closed doors (and they can't anyway because Juncker is representing 27 countries, the one he doesn't have to care about is the UK). That May has not refuted what has been said (and is now coming out saying she is going to be "bloody difficult" would imply these things were said and she wants to look 'hard' because she didn't get what she wanted out of the discussions. She would have been far better coming out saying they were difficult discussions and that a lot of work is going to be needed by both sides and compromises made. As it stands the UK is likely to lose seriously if May takes umbridge at the leaked information because in reality it's going to happen all the time during the discussions.

I can't think of a single example of you ever saying anything good about the Tories, or bad about the EU. It's reached the point now where I know what you're going to say before you say it. If someone does either of those things, you bury them in five foot long quote chains and insist that they must be ill-educated, under the influence of evil newspapers, lack critical thinking, and so on.


That's not particularly correct, rather the current discussions relate to their current antics and they are generally mostly negative or self serving. However some actions are positive (whether by choice or luck). For example there was an article I read today (which for the life of me I can't find) where grants were given out to the poorest students introduced by the Tories in 2010 and that has helped them lift their attainment level. This is a good thing. On the other hand we now have the re-introduction of grammar schools which favours the wealthy as indicated by all the evidence and reports. If the Tories expanded the grant scheme evidenced to work then I would be supportive; but I am not of a scheme that only favours the wealthy few. However things like Mays inability to answer a straight question except with soundbites:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-meets-voter-cornwall_uk_5908deece4b0bb2d087292a3?utm_hp_ref=uk; or that we have no clue how the nuclear industry will work now we are leaving Euratom
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39774062; or where we are ignoring the environment of overseas territories
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39771047

do not provide me with any optimism that who we have in charge are not just a bunch of authoritarian nutcases that are likely more interested in their own interests (for example calling an election when we should really be negotiating) than the countries interests.

Conversely I'm happy to criticise the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU as is both internationally deemed illegal and it ensures that third world countries can not produce food for the open market competitively - but it doesn't mean I think we should leave over it, rather I'd prefer that we influenced it from within rather than now having to worry how we are going to have subsidise our own farmers just so they can compete (and never mind they are in the midst of a recruitment crisis). However generally because they are consortium of 27 countries they generally make sound decisions even if takes time to get there because the extremes of any particular country are mitigated.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 21:50:21


Post by: Darkjim


Deleted for non-derailing purposes.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:19:22


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 whembly wrote:
If the EU wants to be dickish towards the UK... a former colony of yours across the ocean is waiting for you with open arms.


TBH with the way things are headed in Europe I'm getting to the point where I'd genuinely prefer to be the 51st American state than an EU member state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Darkjim wrote:

Also, perhaps a calmer tone, and not chucking round accusations of 5 foot reply chains when the only 2 such above on this page are ... err ... yours. Honestly, you'll get this one locked too.

Edit - by 'too', I mean locked as well as the other one, not that you got that one locked. Poorly phrased..


Perhaps you could direct some of that tone policing to your own side from time to time, such as R. "feth brexiters" squared?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:22:44


Post by: r_squared


May saying she us going to be a bloody difficult woman, is that just for Junker, or for us as well?

It just sounds like another easily digestible soundbite for the hard of political thinking to latch onto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Perhaps you could direct some of that tone policing to your own side from time to time, such as R. "feth brexiters" squared?


Well, a mod slapped my wrists all ready, but perhaps you'd like some sort of flogging?

Its also a bit rich coming from one half of the pair who got our last, perfectly civil, but occasionally lively, political thread closed because of ignorant, bordeline racist, comments.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:29:08


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Steve steveson wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Certainly. And that's why we should be using every inch of leverage we have in exchange, from the security arrangements to settling rights for Poles.

I've never quite understood why so many people (I feel I should point out now that I'm targeting nobody specific here ) feel like we should cripple our own negotiating position by giving all advantages of British friendship away in the name of humanity, but expect the EU to give nothing back on the same lines.


Basic humanity of not using people's lives as bargaining chips? I find it frightening that friends of mine, who have lived in the U.K. for decades, have lives, families, careers and homes here are being told that they might be thrown out of the country because of swabbing between the EU and the UK. Because people want to use those lives as a bargain chip. I don't like that we are leaving the EU, but believe that as we are we should get the best deal we can. However we should not be holding families hostage as a tool to do that.


No, we shouldn't. It is immoral.

But that's exactly what the EU is doing with British citizens in Europe. Our governments ultimate responsibility is to British citizens, not EU citizens, and vice versa. If your friends wanted to lay down permanent roots in Britain, they should have applied for British citizenship. As should British citizens in Europe.

This is the point at which a little quid pro quo is appropriate. Both Britain and the EU have citizens in a similar predicament. That predicament could be solved by coming to a mutual agreement to let British and EU citizens remain in their respective host countries. Britain has offered to come to an arrangement, whereas the EU has flatly refused to discuss it until we cave in to their blackmail demands for massive bills.

Britain cares enough about the issue and the British/EU citizens involved to offer to come to a separate and mutual arrangement, whereas the EU government does not care. It cares more about settling bills, than protecting EU citizens in Britain.

Direct your ire to the EU, not Britain.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:33:45


Post by: Future War Cultist


Exalted Shadow Captain. We offered to settle that issue right from the start, but they wouldn't even discuss it. The money came first. One side is being unreasonable and it's not the UK.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:37:43


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 r_squared wrote:
May saying she us going to be a bloody difficult woman, is that just for Junker, or for us as well?

It just sounds like another easily digestible soundbite for the hard of political thinking to latch onto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Perhaps you could direct some of that tone policing to your own side from time to time, such as R. "feth brexiters" squared?


Well, a mod slapped my wrists all ready, but perhaps you'd like some sort of flogging?


No. This isn't even about you really, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in complaining about the tone of your opponents whilst ignoring your own side. And by "your" I mean Darkjim.

Its also a bit rich coming from one half of the pair who got our last, perfectly civil, but occasionally lively, political thread closed because of ignorant, bordeline racist, comments.


No, its not. I wasn't breaking rule no. 1 insulting half of the people in the thread. You were.

And I reject the characterization of my comments (speaking only for myself) as racist and would have elaborated to explain why, had I been challenged to and had the thread not been immediately locked without allowing anyone a chance to respond. For one thing, by "several million", I was referring to Islamic extremists worldwide, not just Britain. I do not think all 2.7million British Muslims are extremist. Its not however controversial or statistically unlikely to suggest that there are several million extremist Muslims across the world.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:39:42


Post by: jhe90


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Certainly. And that's why we should be using every inch of leverage we have in exchange, from the security arrangements to settling rights for Poles.

I've never quite understood why so many people (I feel I should point out now that I'm targeting nobody specific here ) feel like we should cripple our own negotiating position by giving all advantages of British friendship away in the name of humanity, but expect the EU to give nothing back on the same lines.


Basic humanity of not using people's lives as bargaining chips? I find it frightening that friends of mine, who have lived in the U.K. for decades, have lives, families, careers and homes here are being told that they might be thrown out of the country because of swabbing between the EU and the UK. Because people want to use those lives as a bargain chip. I don't like that we are leaving the EU, but believe that as we are we should get the best deal we can. However we should not be holding families hostage as a tool to do that.


No, we shouldn't. It is immoral.

But that's exactly what the EU is doing with British citizens in Europe. Our governments ultimate responsibility is to British citizens, not EU citizens, and vice versa. If your friends wanted to lay down permanent roots in Britain, they should have applied for British citizenship. As should British citizens in Europe.

This is the point at which a little quid pro quo is appropriate. Both Britain and the EU have citizens in a similar predicament. That predicament could be solved by coming to a mutual agreement to let British and EU citizens remain in their respective host countries. Britain has offered to come to an arrangement, whereas the EU has flatly refused to discuss it until we cave in to their blackmail demands for massive bills.

Britain cares enough about the issue and the British/EU citizens involved to offer to come to a separate and mutual arrangement, whereas the EU government does not care. It cares more about settling bills, than protecting EU citizens in Britain.

Direct your ire to the EU, not Britain.


UK has to do everything we can to defend our citizens rights and furful thr basic duty of govement to best protect and advance the interests of nation and people.. If they are going to engage I blackmail, then they are not looking out for there own citizens in this case.

Hopefully we can restore sense. Do a quid pro pro deal and negotiate this sensibility like adults deciding the fates of millions.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:42:06


Post by: r_squared


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
....Britain cares enough about the issue and the British/EU citizens involved to offer to come to a separate and mutual arrangement, whereas the EU government does not care. It cares more about settling bills, than protecting EU citizens in Britain....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

One of the most prominent parts of the agreement for negotiations agreed by the EU27,

The right for every EU citizen, and of his or her family members, to live, to work or to study in any EU Member State is a fundamental aspect of the European Union. Along with other rights provided under EU law, it has shaped the lives and choices of millions of people. Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to settle the status and situations at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union will be a matter of priority for the negotiations. Such guarantees must be enforceable and non-discriminatory.


Number 8 on the list of any agreed financial settlement, cited at number 10.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Exalted Shadow Captain. We offered to settle that issue right from the start, but they wouldn't even discuss it. The money came first. One side is being unreasonable and it's not the UK.


See above.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:45:58


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 r_squared wrote:
Number 8 on the list of any agreed financial settlement, cited at number 10.


No...they want to tie the agreement to a financial settlement, Britain wants to negotiate an agreement separately. Basically they're saying "agree to pay us this massive bill and then we'll agree to not feth over our respective ex-pats".


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:46:12


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And I reject the characterization of my comments (speaking only for myself) as racist and would have elaborated to explain why, had I been challenged to and had the thread not been immediately locked without allowing anyone a chance to respond. For one thing, by "several million", I was referring to Islamic extremists worldwide, not just Britain. I do not think all 2.7million British Muslims are extremist. Its not however controversial or statistically unlikely to suggest that there are several million extremist Muslims across the world.


What he said, more or less, since I'm the other half involved.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:48:30


Post by: Steve steveson


I level the same criticism at the EU, however they are not what was being discussed at the time. Both sides should have agreed this, and neither side should be using it as a bargaining chip. They are both equally at fault.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:49:21


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 jhe90 wrote:
UK has to do everything we can to defend our citizens rights and furful thr basic duty of govement to best protect and advance the interests of nation and people.. If they are going to engage I blackmail, then they are not looking out for there own citizens in this case.

Hopefully we can restore sense. Do a quid pro pro deal and negotiate this sensibility like adults deciding the fates of millions.


The problem is that the EU simply does not care. Their biggest priority is not protecting a few hundred thousand or million EU citizens living in Britain.

Their biggest priority is maintaining the integrity of the European project. They don't want to see the empire they've built begin to crumble. And so they need to deter other member states from wanting to leave, by making sure Brexit, the first test case for a Member state exiting the EU, is an abject failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
I level the same criticism at the EU, however they are not what was being discussed at the time. Both sides should have agreed this, and neither side should be using it as a bargaining chip. They are both equally at fault.


Then we're in agreement.

And to that end, I don't think any agreement should be contingent on a financial settlement, the right of British/EU citizens to stay should be negotiated seperately. (As should a lot of things, on a case by case basis). Theres a good chance that there won't even be a financial settlement, or that we'll be arguing over it for many years to come, and by tying ex-pat rights to said settlement, the EU is knowingly leaving its citizens in limbo.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:51:50


Post by: Future War Cultist


That issue should have been agreed to immediately and unconditionally. It's shameful that it hasn't been nor is it likely to be.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:54:56


Post by: welshhoppo


Actions speak louder than words.


If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.

If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 22:59:25


Post by: jhe90


 Future War Cultist wrote:
That issue should have been agreed to immediately and unconditionally. It's shameful that it hasn't been nor is it likely to be.


Not our fault. Far asi read we offered to give them rights for rights as a basis to negotiate on..
A fair offer I think.

It is a bad fact though they rely on fear to hold EU loyaltly and unity by going hard on Brexit.
It would show there weaker than they seem and using such tactics to survive.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:00:22


Post by: Future War Cultist


 jhe90 wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
That issue should have been agreed to immediately and unconditionally. It's shameful that it hasn't been nor is it likely to be.


Not our fault. Far asi read we offered to give them rights for rights as a basis to negotiate on..
A fair offer I think.

It is a bad fact though they rely on fear to hold EU loyaltly and unity by going hard on Brexit.
It would show there weaker than they seem and using such tactics to survive.



Exactly, well said.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:08:16


Post by: r_squared


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
....No, its not. I wasn't breaking rule no. 1 insulting half of the people in the thread. You were.

And I reject the characterization of my comments (speaking only for myself) as racist and would have elaborated to explain why, had I been challenged to and had the thread not been immediately locked without allowing anyone a chance to respond. For one thing, by "several million", I was referring to Islamic extremists worldwide, not just Britain. I do not think all 2.7million British Muslims are extremist. Its not however controversial or statistically unlikely to suggest that there are several million extremist Muslims across the world.


I can also "reject" characterizations. For a start I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread in particular, just a general malaise towards the Brexiteers in Govt, the ones that my rant was directed at. The last paragraph in my original quote actually refers to them as, The Brexiteers.
If you got your feelings hurt because you thought I was talking about you, I apologise, I wasn't directing it specifically at you, or any other Leaver.

As to your previous comments, anybody who wants to can have a look and judge for themselves what you meant when you said...

No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.


And FWC said,

Worryingly there's thousands of the bastards up and down the country. Any day of the week any one of them could just decide that's it's jihad time and go on a car and knifing spree. Not to mention the likes of the Rottherham sex rings and other similar set ups.

Still, it's a small price to pay to be 'diverse' now, isn't it?


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7170/696154.page


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:11:26


Post by: welshhoppo


I think bringing up the last few posts of a recently banned thread isn't a very good idea.


Silly things were said, but let's keep them out of here.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:14:42


Post by: jhe90


True.

And to explain my last post there.
The frustration at that however many we arrest, that get caught. There's always more. There campaign of violence carries on with new flag bearers.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:15:26


Post by: King Henry VIII


 jhe90 wrote:


It is a bad fact though they rely on fear to hold EU loyaltly and unity by going hard on Brexit.
It would show there weaker than they seem and using such tactics to survive.



You are right. That certainly is a bad "fact".


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:18:39


Post by: Compel


Election wise, council elections Thursday in many areas.

It's anyone expecting a record massive voter turnout?

Anyone really know much about their prospective councillors?

Nope? Me neither.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:19:50


Post by: r_squared


 welshhoppo wrote:
Actions speak louder than words.


If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.

If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?


There was nothing stopping us granting the rights straight away to the EU citizens in this country that we need, after all, were the ones walking away. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens in the UK are productive, tax paying contributors usally in professions that we have significant shortages of. UK nationals in the EU are overwhelming retirees, they are also much much fewer in number.
It is in our interests to ensure that these EU nationals wish to stay here, we need them.

We could have had a huge moral advantage, which, politically is nothing to be sneezed at, secured vital jobs and probably garnered some support from those other countries in the EU who aren't interested in brinkmanship, but instead we've squandered it by playing to the lower level that Junker is advocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Compel wrote:
Election wise, council elections Thursday in many areas.

It's anyone expecting a record massive voter turnout?

Anyone really know much about their prospective councillors?

Nope? Me neither.


Fragmentary bits and pieces, I've had to work to find out who's actually standing, and I'm not convinced that the info I have is correct. Only had one leaflet through the door, and my wife recycled it before I'd read it.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:26:02


Post by: Orlanth


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Certainly. And that's why we should be using every inch of leverage we have in exchange, from the security arrangements to settling rights for Poles.

I've never quite understood why so many people (I feel I should point out now that I'm targeting nobody specific here ) feel like we should cripple our own negotiating position by giving all advantages of British friendship away in the name of humanity, but expect the EU to give nothing back on the same lines.


Basic humanity of not using people's lives as bargaining chips? I find it frightening that friends of mine, who have lived in the U.K. for decades, have lives, families, careers and homes here are being told that they might be thrown out of the country because of swabbing between the EU and the UK. Because people want to use those lives as a bargain chip. I don't like that we are leaving the EU, but believe that as we are we should get the best deal we can. However we should not be holding families hostage as a tool to do that.


No, we shouldn't. It is immoral.

But that's exactly what the EU is doing with British citizens in Europe. Our governments ultimate responsibility is to British citizens, not EU citizens, and vice versa. If your friends wanted to lay down permanent roots in Britain, they should have applied for British citizenship. As should British citizens in Europe.

This is the point at which a little quid pro quo is appropriate. Both Britain and the EU have citizens in a similar predicament. That predicament could be solved by coming to a mutual agreement to let British and EU citizens remain in their respective host countries. Britain has offered to come to an arrangement, whereas the EU has flatly refused to discuss it until we cave in to their blackmail demands for massive bills.

Britain cares enough about the issue and the British/EU citizens involved to offer to come to a separate and mutual arrangement, whereas the EU government does not care. It cares more about settling bills, than protecting EU citizens in Britain.

Direct your ire to the EU, not Britain.


i agree but it isn't the true issue. The EU is demanding full EU rights for EU citizens in the UK and dependent territories right down to being under full EU law. Its not just that said rights are not going to be reciprocated, and frankly shouldnt, UK citizens in the EU should be under EU law and vice versa. The real issue is this is being used as a way to guarantee EU law in the UK.
So for example if the UK gets a hard Brexit, which is likely allowing for the demands being levied then we cannot undercut the EU if we have to apply EU restrictions in full to EU citizens inside our borders.

People are looking at these are rights issues, they are in fact economic issues. The Eu wants us to either capitulate and accept their laws to keep the EU competitive, or be forced to accept them anyway by the back door by not understanding the true consequences of our exit treaty and thus prevent us from being more competitive..


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:26:28


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 r_squared wrote:


I can also "reject" characterizations. For a start I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread in particular, just a general malaise towards the Brexiteers in Govt, the ones that my rant was directed at. The last paragraph in my original quote actually refers to them as, The Brexiteers.
If you got your feelings hurt because you thought I was talking about you, I apologise, I wasn't directing it specifically at you, or any other Leaver.


Yes, feth the Tories. I won't disagree with that sentiment, I loathe them too. But you didn't specify the government, you were tarring with quite a wide brush and as half the posters in this/these threads are pro-Brexit that was straying into personal insult territory. And don't worry, my feelings weren't hurt and I don't desire your apology. I would have quite happily given as good as I got in this regard, but my response probably would have resulted in a ban so the yellow triangle it was.

As to your previous comments, anybody who wants to can have a look and judge for themselves what you meant when you said...


Please don't try to gas-light me. I know what I meant. I am TELLING you what I meant. If I'd been asked at the time, I would have clarified on the spot what I meant. Instead the thread was Insta-locked without any recourse or chance to respond.

Do not presume to lecture me on what I think and mean.



Spoilered the rest of my post to avoid turning this into a wall of text.

Spoiler:
No points for guessing the demographic of the suspect.


Here, I meant Muslim. Not skin colour. Was "demographic" the wrong word? Islam is not a race, you can not be racist against a religion. The point I was expressing here was that the identity of the attacker was easily predictable (radicalised Muslim), given that the vast majority of terror attacks have been carried out by Muslims. Had this recent (failed) attacker been a far-right white supremacist, I would have been surprised. I was not surprised to find it was yet another Muslim.

Don't read too much into this comment, its no more than a "Surprise, Surprise!" sarcastic sentiment.

And FWC said,

Worryingly there's thousands of the bastards up and down the country. Any day of the week any one of them could just decide that's it's jihad time and go on a car and knifing spree. Not to mention the likes of the Rottherham sex rings and other similar set ups.

Still, it's a small price to pay to be 'diverse' now, isn't it?


Again, he was quite clearly referring to extremist Muslims, of which there ARE thousands of them up and down the country. What would you call them, other than bastards? Are you saying the guy who attacked Westminster is not a bastard?...

Nothing which FWC nor I said is factually incorrect. But apparently facts are racist...








UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:29:57


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Insert *obligatory explanation of how cultural racism is a term and that you really, really should know that by now, considering this isn't the first time this is brought up* here


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:34:34


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Insert *obligatory explanation of how cultural racism is a term and that you really, really should know that by now, considering this isn't the first time this is brought up* here


A.k.a. the alternative definition that people bring up whenever the true definition doesn't quite suit their narrative.

Islam is an ideology. A set of ideas, values and beliefs, many of which I consider to be bad ideas.

Ideas should never be immune to criticism simply because you think its "culturally racist" to criticise and oppose them.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:35:59


Post by: welshhoppo


 r_squared wrote:
 welshhoppo wrote:
Actions speak louder than words.


If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.

If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?


There was nothing stopping us granting the rights straight away to the EU citizens in this country that we need, after all, were the ones walking away. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens in the UK are productive, tax paying contributors usally in professions that we have significant shortages of. UK nationals in the EU are overwhelming retirees, they are also much much fewer in number.
It is in our interests to ensure that these EU nationals wish to stay here, we need them.

We could have had a huge moral advantage, which, politically is nothing to be sneezed at, secured vital jobs and probably garnered some support from those other countries in the EU who aren't interested in brinkmanship, but instead we've squandered it by playing to the lower level that Junker is advocating.



If you really think that having the moral high ground in politics actually means something then you have very littler experience of the real world.

You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.

However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.

But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:36:21


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Insert *obligatory explanation of how cultural racism is a term and that you really, really should know that by now, considering this isn't the first time this is brought up* here


A.k.a. the alternative definition that people bring up whenever the true definition doesn't quite suit their narrative.


How are you the arbiter of what is considered the "true" definition of something? "Race" is a social construct; replace it with any other social construct and the resulting ideology is still treating people differently because of a perceived inherent quality in people belonging to that social construct.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:37:11


Post by: King Henry VIII


And also the fact that, in the UK, the vast majority of terrorist acts were carried out by white men.

Granted, there has been a swing towards Muslim extremists as perpetrators in recent years but it's still fairly close to evens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain


UK Politics @ 2017/05/02 23:40:55


Post by: Janthkin


Last and only warning: there is no quicker way to lose this thread than to revive the conversation from the last one that got it locked.

I'm locking this for the evening. Consider it a cooling off period.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 17:35:20


Post by: King Henry VIII


 welshhoppo wrote:


You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.

However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.

But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.


How would it make us seem weak? It could just as easily be seen as an act of strength by a confident nation, secure in its position as it heads to the negotiating table.

And you have touched on the political capital that could be made at the EUs expense, playing up to the EU sceptics fears that it doesn't actually give a damn about the rights of its citizens, by making such a move.

And beyond the PR and political concerns, it's about not being a total bell end and instead actually doing the decent thing for its own sake.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 17:46:27


Post by: r_squared


 welshhoppo wrote:
Spoiler:
 r_squared wrote:
 welshhoppo wrote:
Actions speak louder than words.


If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.

If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?


There was nothing stopping us granting the rights straight away to the EU citizens in this country that we need, after all, were the ones walking away. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens in the UK are productive, tax paying contributors usally in professions that we have significant shortages of. UK nationals in the EU are overwhelming retirees, they are also much much fewer in number.
It is in our interests to ensure that these EU nationals wish to stay here, we need them.

We could have had a huge moral advantage, which, politically is nothing to be sneezed at, secured vital jobs and probably garnered some support from those other countries in the EU who aren't interested in brinkmanship, but instead we've squandered it by playing to the lower level that Junker is advocating.



If you really think that having the moral high ground in politics actually means something then you have very littler experience of the real world.

You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.

However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.

But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.


Your last sentence is telling, if we are so desperate as to need to hold people to ransom to "pay the bills", we are not displaying strength, but weakness.

Having the moral high ground is everything in politics, it's what every politician aspires too. It's one of the things that wins elections, not economics or other concerns, but getting the "feels" right for the electorate.

The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 19:38:16


Post by: Kilkrazy


I have to say I don't really get what May is accusing the EU of doing.

I don't understand what is supposed to have happened. AFAIK, there has been a supposedly leaked account of her dinner with Juncker last week, saying that things are going to be difficult, and suddenly she has gone all mediaeval on his arse.

I listen to the Radio 4 news and politlcal coverage for about an hour each day, driving to and from work, so I am pretty well informed about this stuff. It sounds like bs to me.

We always knew it was going to be hellish difficult getting out of the EU, that's the main reason a lot of us wanted to leave.

I don't see how all this disrupts the election. It seems more like May has grabbed an opportunity to declaim how tough she is and Korben would be crap.

Such stable!. Much strong!! Very leadership!! WOW!!!!!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 19:38:50


Post by: Whirlwind


 r_squared wrote:


The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.


I'd agree with this.

May has come out all guns blazing accusing the EU of trying alter the election and "threatening" the UK when they have done nothing of the sort. We all know papers spin articles to please which ever crowd they think they can earn the most money from (or the largest crowd the owners think they can influence). There have been plenty of sniping by UK papers of the EU now and in the past and that hasn't produced an announcement of the sort May made today. It could be argued that she is already setting up the EU to be blamed when things go south to try and divest herself and the government of responsibility. So she slams the EU on *newpaper* reports that have leaked information on the UK (and importantly UK invited) meeting but failed to make any criticism of UK papers that called UK judges "enemy of the state". It's very dangerous because having the press say something is completely different to a head of state saying others are manipulating the election and threatening the nation but not actually expanding on what these are because she is not allowing open and transparent review of the negotiation process.
The European Commission's negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials.
At best it might just reinforce the EUs view that May is living on another galaxy and worse there could be people in the EU that might be sympathetic to having a good deal which might be seriously compromised when you tarnish the EU overall with such accusations without providing evidence (and a report in the paper is not even such). Even the Euro100billion is an estimated calculation by the financial times - the EU (last time I checked) had not provided an official figure because they don't yet know what the UK wants to continue to be involved with. May effectively could just be burning bridges before she has even started any real negotiations. It's a crazy strategy to pander to part of the electorate to ensure that they go out and vote yet at the same time potentially negatively effecting our overall standing with the EU and making them even more focussed on only getting something that works for the EU.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 21:09:27


Post by: Future War Cultist


I enjoyed seeing whiny Tim getting taken to task by an Elvis personator. It's just a pity the guy wasn't in costume.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 22:12:22


Post by: Howard A Treesong


The way the £60bn Brexit bill has ballooned to £100bn shows what a sham it is. There is no justification beyond whatever some in the EU think they can get away with demanding. It's not a rounding error, it's a vast sum, clearly this sum we owe them is very fluid and not pinned down, even to within tens of billions.

Initially the European Commission recommended that the UK's share of EU assets should be subtracted from a final bill, but that is no longer the case.

EU officials say this is because assets are owned by the EU as an entity, rather than by the individual member states.


There is no set amount or clear justification for these numbers, they're as guilty of making it up as any of our people, depending on what they decide counts as ours or not. Seems like they want the penny and the bun, us paying for our full share of commitments but no return on our share of assets invested because they now belong to all the EU. Heads I win, tails you lose.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 22:22:13


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 22:40:10


Post by: Vaktathi


I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 22:43:56


Post by: Future War Cultist


I'm now in the "give them feth all" camp. No way should we put up with that gak.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:01:36


Post by: Compel


How different really is it than "no deal is better than a bad deal?"


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:05:12


Post by: r_squared


 Future War Cultist wrote:
I enjoyed seeing whiny Tim getting taken to task by an Elvis personator. It's just a pity the guy wasn't in costume.


I guess we're going to have to wait for someone to get a chance to shout incoherent rubbish at May.

The old guy was just wanting to spout his bile before flouncing off without having to listen to any counter to his rubbish. I can see why you like him.

Tim handled it well, was unflustered and made a very good point. He can tolerate dissent, and will listen to people, even ignorant old gakkers who just want to spout off. May can't handle dissent, because she's a coward and a flip flopper.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:11:18


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:

The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.


r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.

EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.

You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:27:59


Post by: Steve steveson


 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:

The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.


r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.

EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.

You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.


No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation. They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU. No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:33:54


Post by: r_squared


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The way the £60bn Brexit bill has ballooned to £100bn shows what a sham it is. There is no justification beyond whatever some in the EU think they can get away with demanding. It's not a rounding error, it's a vast sum, clearly this sum we owe them is very fluid and not pinned down, even to within tens of billions.

Initially the European Commission recommended that the UK's share of EU assets should be subtracted from a final bill, but that is no longer the case.

EU officials say this is because assets are owned by the EU as an entity, rather than by the individual member states.


There is no set amount or clear justification for these numbers, they're as guilty of making it up as any of our people, depending on what they decide counts as ours or not. Seems like they want the penny and the bun, us paying for our full share of commitments but no return on our share of assets invested because they now belong to all the EU. Heads I win, tails you lose.


I agree that I think this is a negotiating tactic but i believe the reason the numbers are fluctuating is because working it out is complicated and depends on a number of factors that are undecided.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/what-do-we-know-about-britains-brexit-divorce-bill

It could be in response to the estimated assets of €153bn held by the EU that we could be entitled to a share of...

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/

So, at the moment it's hard to say what is going to happen. But, as the CBI has said, a one off payment of €60bn is peanuts to support their estimation of €600bn worth of trade between us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:

The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.


r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.

EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.

You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.


I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?

I think you've completely missed the point.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:50:10


Post by: Orlanth


 Steve steveson wrote:

No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation.


No, I am not. You are.
See below for links showing why.

 Steve steveson wrote:

They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.


This has been available from the outset:

https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/overview

Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.



 Steve steveson wrote:

No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.

13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.

15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.







UK Politics @ 2017/05/03 23:51:22


Post by: r_squared


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.


We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.

We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 00:01:32


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:


I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?

I think you've completely missed the point.


When you say 'wierd assertion' you ought to mean backed by the evidence of EU written Brexit policy.

The EU doesn't insist on back door imposition on Chile or Australia because neither country was part of the EU. The EU wants us to be bound by EU law, partly to steal trade, partly to force us to pay funds into the EU and partly to make sure the Uk doesn't undercut them on international trade. The EU doesn't have influence on other countries like this. It does happen though, and its a form of subjugation when it does.

This is plain as day through the comments from Merkel, Tusk and Juncker, that this is the case. They want the UK to be tied heavily to EU law in return for any form of trade deal. This isnt misinformation of leaver voter scare, its evidence based on consistent pattern of comments by parties central to the negotiations.

Take this quote for you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/eu-brexit-guidelines-document-really-means/

20. Any future framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application.

Daily Telegraph added commentary:
This has been added, reportedly at the request of the French, and it implies that any deal on financial services will require the UK to be a ‘rule taker’ and not engage in a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This reflects France’s hawkish approach on financial services and EU fears that the UK could radically diverge from the EU standards in search of competitive advantage. The EU side will look to bind the UK’s hands in this, and other areas, as part of any future comprehensive trade deal. The UK side, by contrast, wants a dynamic regulatory arrangement in which the UK has some input into regulations as they evolve. How this issue is resolved will be fundamental to any future trade deal with the EU, determining how “deep” the trading relationship remains.


 r_squared wrote:

I think you've completely missed the point.


I didnt miss the point, because I read the documentation, and posted links and quotes. Documents signed by Donald Tusk are valid with regards to commenting on EU policy.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 00:08:30


Post by: r_squared


 Orlanth wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:

No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation.


No, I am not. You are.
See below for links showing why.

 Steve steveson wrote:

They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.


This has been available from the outset:

https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/overview

Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.



 Steve steveson wrote:

No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.

13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.

15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.







I've been to Akrotiri and Episkopi several times in my career and this is what you need to know about this...

Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.


In effect, the areas are just military bases, nothing more. There are no British colonists on the island, just serving personnel and expats. The SBA police are mostly Cypriot, and have primacy, even on base, and we are obliged to comply with SBA law, which aligns closely with The Republic of Cyprus' law, when serving there. Fortunately there's not much difference.
So, with that in mind, the specific demands from the EU here are perfectly acceptable, and in line with current orthodoxy, as long as Cyprus stays in the EU.
There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 00:22:10


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.


We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago.



 r_squared wrote:

We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.


If we 'burn our bridges' it will be because the EU will only offer us specific and limiting trade deals. We will likely get free trade on agricultural products, but not on financial services. We cannot even see when deals we might get until we agree to agree fees up front.
It is very likely the EU's deal will be so unworkable that a hard Brexit may be preferably for economic reasons, not pride.

Brexit was a bad idea, but now it has happened a hard Brexit is likely better than accepting the any cost offer the EU gives us.


My main reason for replying to your comment was the idea that a hard Brexit is 'ignorant pride'. Really you have no idea:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/brexit-donald-tusk-article-50-eu-watch-live/

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-31/eu-s-brexit-guidelines-warn-u-k-dumping-would-derail-trade-deal

Notably:
May was also told that any transitional or implementation period to ease the passage to a new relationship once Britain leaves the EU must be “limited in time” and would require the U.K. accepting "regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures.”

Any nation that has to accept laws imposed by a third party body but has no input on the legislative process is a vassal of said body.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 00:22:37


Post by: r_squared


 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:


I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?

I think you've completely missed the point.


When you say 'wierd assertion' you ought to mean backed by the evidence of EU written Brexit policy.

The EU doesn't insist on back door imposition on Chile or Australia because neither country was part of the EU. The EU wants us to be bound by EU law, partly to steal trade, partly to force us to pay funds into the EU and partly to make sure the Uk doesn't undercut them on international trade. The EU doesn't have influence on other countries like this. It does happen though, and its a form of subjugation when it does.

This is plain as day through the comments from Merkel, Tusk and Juncker, that this is the case. They want the UK to be tied heavily to EU law in return for any form of trade deal. This isnt misinformation of leaver voter scare, its evidence based on consistent pattern of comments by parties central to the negotiations.

Take this quote for you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/eu-brexit-guidelines-document-really-means/

20. Any future framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application.

Daily Telegraph added commentary:
This has been added, reportedly at the request of the French, and it implies that any deal on financial services will require the UK to be a ‘rule taker’ and not engage in a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This reflects France’s hawkish approach on financial services and EU fears that the UK could radically diverge from the EU standards in search of competitive advantage. The EU side will look to bind the UK’s hands in this, and other areas, as part of any future comprehensive trade deal. The UK side, by contrast, wants a dynamic regulatory arrangement in which the UK has some input into regulations as they evolve. How this issue is resolved will be fundamental to any future trade deal with the EU, determining how “deep” the trading relationship remains.


 r_squared wrote:

I think you've completely missed the point.


I didnt miss the point, because I read the documentation, and posted links and quotes. Documents signed by Donald Tusk are valid with regards to commenting on EU policy.


You have missed the point though, by quite a margin. For a start that quote about the French is opinion, not fact. That's immediately obvious by considering the source and language used.
It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others. We knew that throughout the whole Brexit process, we would have to comply with EU law in order to trade with them. What's the surprise or big deal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth 724548 9341983 59b90e1005a220e2ebc542eb9d950b1e.jpg.. wrote:Any nation that has to accept laws imposed by a third party body but has no input on the legislative process is a vassal of said body.



Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth. Secondly, in order to trade with other nations, we have to comply with their laws. We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 00:32:31


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:

I've been to Akrotiri and Episkopi several times in my career and this is what you need to know about this...

Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.


In effect, the areas are just military bases, nothing more. There are no British colonists on the island, just serving personnel and expats. The SBA police are mostly Cypriot, and have primacy, even on base, and we are obliged to comply with SBA law, which aligns closely with The Republic of Cyprus' law, when serving there. Fortunately there's not much difference.
So, with that in mind, the specific demands from the EU here are perfectly acceptable, and in line with current orthodoxy, as long as Cyprus stays in the EU.
There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.


Having lived in Episkopi myself I already knew this, but thanks. What you are missing is that the relationship of the SBA to Cyprus predates the membership of the EU of both countries. We do not need EU legislation to dictate the operation of the SBA or its relationship with Greek cypriots. We certainly don't want the EU to leverage the SBA mandate, there is already claims that Gibraltar's rights will not be respected by the EU.

Donald Tusk is a clever man, far more subtle than Juncker, the Brexit guidelines are written in legalese and you have to read them carefully. There is a lot of thinly veiled nasty stuff in them


 r_squared wrote:

There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.


Unless:
We have to accept EU law as part of a trade deal - and the EU has hinted it wants to do that, as have primary members Germany and France.

We have to accept EU law for EU citizens within the UK - this has been dselected as a negotiation goal in Donald Tusks guidelines.

We have to accept the primacy of the European Court of Justice in matters regarding EU citizens in the UK or in trade negotiations. - Likewise highlighted as a negotiation goal. This part is most important, as if there is a trade disagreement within the bounds of a trade deal there isn't an impasse instead it gets referred to the ECJ or European commission, who will find in favour of the EU members states against us.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 r_squared wrote:


You have missed the point though, by quite a margin. For a start that quote about the French is opinion, not fact. That's immediately obvious by considering the source and language used.


Yes its opinion, but its opinion base on evidence provided. It sees the problem rationally rather than remainer la la land where the EU are nice people who will offer us a fair trade deal in return for fair contribution.
Take a look at what these leaders are saying, powerful people in the EU with a very strong hand in the way the EU is run.

French leaders comments on Brexit deal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/06/french-pm-terms-brexit-deal-inferior-to-full-eu-membership-bernard-cazeneuve
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/francois-hollande-tells-mrs-may-will-frustrate-hopes-swift-brexit/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/763736/Brexit-news-French-PM-Juncker-Britain-worse-deal-outside-EU
http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/french-pm-says-britain-must-agree-divorce-terms-before-trade-deal/


 r_squared wrote:

It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others.


The EU has made comment that it wants binding legislation to prevent us from undercutting EU legislation. If they get their way we wont be in the EU or have any of the benefits, but still unable to undercut its labyrinthine complexity and inefficient bureaucracy. This is wanted especially with regards to financial institutions to prevent what the French claim to be a 'regulatory race to the bottom' which is a spun out way of saying that the UK can be more competitive than the EU by ditching its heavy legislative burdens.


 r_squared wrote:

We knew that throughout the whole Brexit process, we would have to comply with EU law in order to trade with them. What's the surprise or big deal?


No surprise at all. This was expected, however the EU want us to comply with EU law when not trading with the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/aa0be31d-5de3-37db-a98e-0f0f91d3afee
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-banks-regulations-idUKKBN17D26W



 r_squared wrote:

Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth.


We did, but actually very little of it, and long campaigned unsuccessfully to reduce it. Remember we joined the EEC not the EU, The Uk has resisted federalisation at every turn.
No we are not responsible for the behemoth. The European Commission is unelected and meets behind closed doors. Policy is mostly dicatated by Germany and France, this is why the UK is seen as complaining a lot in chamber. Anything that the French or Germans don't want doesn't even get tabled to begin with. Take the common agricultural policy for example, its tailor made for the French, and nobody can shift it.

 r_squared wrote:

Secondly, in order to trade with other nations, we have to comply with their laws.


Yes but

 r_squared wrote:

We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.


Ok, how to rewrite this even simpler so you will understand.

Nicaragua has everyright to consider how its laws are effected in a Nicarague-UK trade deal. However the EU also wants a say.
Its not only about EU wanting to negotiate for the EU with regards to post Brexit trade between EU and UK, they also want to have treaty legislation that binds how the UK trades with any country.

I can understand why. London is the EU' and Europes primary finance centre, and one of two globally. This accounts for about 16% of the UK economy. As London leaves the EU one of two things will happen, either London's financial power will flow to the EU, or EU financial power will stay where it is or even in part flow to London.
The French and the Germans want heavy legislation both in the EU and between the EU and UK to prevent the UK from undercutting financial services, and also to try and steal global business from London.
The UK wants to prevent an asset stripping of the city, which is very likely to be a condition of any Brexit trade deal.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 06:35:12


Post by: Jadenim


 r_squared wrote:


We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.


This, so much this. I couldn't believe May's statement the other day about being a "bloody difficult" woman; how can anyone think that being obstinate, petty and jingoistic is a good way to run a complex negotiation?!



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 07:51:15


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


The thread is open again! Yeah!!!!

Back OT.

As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jadenim wrote:
 r_squared wrote:


We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.


This, so much this. I couldn't believe May's statement the other day about being a "bloody difficult" woman; how can anyone think that being obstinate, petty and jingoistic is a good way to run a complex negotiation?!



It's for a domestic audience and according to John Curtice it's working as the UKIP vote is heading back to the Tories.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 07:55:40


Post by: jhe90


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The thread is open again! Yeah!!!!

Back OT.

As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!


Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?

Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 07:55:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Vaktathi wrote:
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.


I've said from the beginning that we as a nation have a duty to honour our treaty obligations. So, if we're legally obliged to pay £30 billion, then we should pay it, but this 100 billion figure is pure nonsense and seems to have been plucked from thin air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The thread is open again! Yeah!!!!

Back OT.

As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!


Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?

Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!


Nelson? If we're going up against the Spanish, then it's Drake's ghost we need


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 07:57:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.




UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 07:59:28


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm now in the "give them feth all" camp. No way should we put up with that gak.


I think £30-40 billion is a fair figure to pay the EU, but anything above that should be laughed out of town.

According to some EU law expert at Cambridge who was on the news last night, we'd get some of that back anyway, which shows how messed up it all is


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:00:37


Post by: r_squared


 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:

There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.


Unless:
We have to accept EU law as part of a trade deal - and the EU has hinted it wants to do that, as have primary members Germany and France.

We have to accept EU law for EU citizens within the UK - this has been dselected as a negotiation goal in Donald Tusks guidelines.

We have to accept the primacy of the European Court of Justice in matters regarding EU citizens in the UK or in trade negotiations. - Likewise highlighted as a negotiation goal. This part is most important, as if there is a trade disagreement within the bounds of a trade deal there isn't an impasse instead it gets referred to the ECJ or European commission, who will find in favour of the EU members states against us.


This is a deliberate misinterpretation of their stated intentions. Can you please point to the part of the EUs Brexit guidelines that compels the UK to refer all judgements, post Brexit to the ECJ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.

 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:

It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others.
 r_squared wrote:

We knew that throughout the whole Brexit process, we would have to comply with EU law in order to trade with them. What's the surprise or big deal?


No surprise at all. This was expected, however the EU want us to comply with EU law when not trading with the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/aa0be31d-5de3-37db-a98e-0f0f91d3afee
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-banks-regulations-idUKKBN17D26W


The EU has made comment that it wants binding legislation to prevent us from undercutting EU legislation. If they get their way we wont be in the EU or have any of the benefits, but still unable to undercut its labyrinthine complexity and inefficient bureaucracy. This is wanted especially with regards to financial institutions to prevent what the French claim to be a 'regulatory race to the bottom' which is a spun out way of saying that the UK can be more competitive than the EU by ditching its heavy legislative burdens.


From your own link quoting Reuters...


Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.

"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.


In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.

 Orlanth wrote:
[
 r_squared wrote:

Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth.


We did, but actually very little of it, and long campaigned unsuccessfully to reduce it. Remember we joined the EEC not the EU, The Uk has resisted federalisation at every turn.
No we are not responsible for the behemoth. The European Commission is unelected and meets behind closed doors. Policy is mostly dicatated by Germany and France, this is why the UK is seen as complaining a lot in chamber. Anything that the French or Germans don't want doesn't even get tabled to begin with. Take the common agricultural policy for example, its tailor made for the French, and nobody can shift it.


You can't keep banging the same old "powerless little Britain" drum. We had our chance, and kept electing UKIP MEPs. We were a big deal in the EU, and had influence, and we squandered it on electing Eurosceptic clowns with no interest in engaging in the political process.

 Orlanth wrote:
[
 r_squared wrote:

Secondly, in order to trade with other nations, we have to comply with their laws.


Yes but

 r_squared wrote:

We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.


Ok, how to rewrite this even simpler so you will understand.

Nicaragua has everyright to consider how its laws are effected in a Nicarague-UK trade deal. However the EU also wants a say.
Its not only about EU wanting to negotiate for the EU with regards to post Brexit trade between EU and UK, they also want to have treaty legislation that binds how the UK trades with any country.

I can understand why. London is the EU' and Europes primary finance centre, and one of two globally. This accounts for about 16% of the UK economy. As London leaves the EU one of two things will happen, either London's financial power will flow to the EU, or EU financial power will stay where it is or even in part flow to London.
The French and the Germans want heavy legislation both in the EU and between the EU and UK to prevent the UK from undercutting financial services, and also to try and steal global business from London.
The UK wants to prevent an asset stripping of the city, which is very likely to be a condition of any Brexit trade deal.


Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening, however, only a naive fool would think that the UK is going to walk away unscathed, many leavers trumpeted their belief that they were happy to take a financial hit to regain "sovreignty", so no one should be whining that they didn't know this would happen.
It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:02:38


Post by: jhe90


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.


I've said from the beginning that we as a nation have a duty to honour our treaty obligations. So, if we're legally obliged to pay £30 billion, then we should pay it, but this 100 billion figure is pure nonsense and seems to have been plucked from thin air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The thread is open again! Yeah!!!!

Back OT.

As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.

And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!


Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?

Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!


Nelson? If we're going up against the Spanish, then it's Drake's ghost we need


True. We can save Nelson for the EU negoiations to bring some propper hat and pomp to our negotiation team.
And it furfils our commitment to disability equality!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:04:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.




The first point is working - John Curtice is saying the UKIP is heading back to the Tories at a rate of knots.

On the second point, a large majority would allow May to boot the rebels and nutters on the backbenches back to the long grass where they belong, and she might even silence tem enough to get Single Market access.

On your third point, blaming the EU will work in the short term, but long term, people will wise up to the fact that's we're out of the EU, and that responsibility for any debacle lies at Westminster's door.

I suspect that we in Scotland will be next on the list once the blame the EU option is no longer feasible. I'm expecting Hadrian's wall to be re-built any day.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:08:38


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


My main concern is Theresa May.

Frankly, I don't think she's fit to lead the country.

Look at her campaigning. All behind closed doors. All very hush-hush.

She seems to be missing any kind of warmth or humanity. She's coming across as an authoritarian nightmare who doesn't like to be challenged. On anything.

She's already bungling the EU talks. Where does this line of incompetence end?

Well, hopefully with the utter destruction of the Tory Party. That'd be a nice start.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:14:04


Post by: r_squared


 Kilkrazy wrote:
May's principle objective is a solid five years of domestic Tory hegemony.
She probably already thought Brexit was going to be a disaster, she was a Remainer herself after all, but she accepts that risk with a view to domestic politics.
Why would May want to own this disaster?

Firstly, by being obstructive to the EU, she hopes to grab the bulk of the UKIP vote, which could in itself deliver a landslide (13% of the votes cast at the 2015 election!)

Secondly, she solidifies control of her own party, who have always had a love-hate relationship with the EU but a stronger love-love relationship with being in power. Some of them also retain a hard-on for the "Iron Lady" image.

Thirdly, by painting the EU as the villains of the piece, she forgives herself and the Tory government for the disaster.

In reality, the EU was always going to be in charge of the negotiations. They control the timetable and the agenda. They are not the ones who lose out if it comes down to the UK getting nothing. UK trade with the EU is vastly more important to the UK than EU trade with the UK is to the EU.
The EU of course loses our contribution, but they have plenty of up-and-coming states in Eastern Europe whose economies are growing rapidly.


Absolutely, she feels she's already defeated labour, and knows that many people consider the EU to be the "opposition", which is why she is making this all about BREXIT.
We're in a lose lose situation here, however we vote. BREXIT is going to hurt no matter who's in power, however, if we elect the Tories, we're stuck with them for 5 years and they will blame all problems on the EU, guaranteed.
If labour or a coalition get in, they get to be the reigns as we head through some pretty choppy water, their support networks will be disillusioned, again, and that will ensure a Tory majority pretty much forever when they swing in to "save" us.
That will lead to the tearing down of our institutions, and the "Americanisation" (no insult intended) of our infrastructure through privatisation and deregulation.

One can only hope that if that's the case, that firearms laws relax, I may need to defend the old homestead.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:14:52


Post by: jhe90


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My main concern is Theresa May.

Frankly, I don't think she's fit to lead the country.

Look at her campaigning. All behind closed doors. All very hush-hush.

She seems to be missing any kind of warmth or humanity. She's coming across as an authoritarian nightmare who doesn't like to be challenged. On anything.

She's already bungling the EU talks. Where does this line of incompetence end?

Well, hopefully with the utter destruction of the Tory Party. That'd be a nice start.


There's still 6 weeks to go.
And that's a very long time in this political climate.

It took Donald trump a week to demolish and turn the us elections against Hillary from losing to walking into the white house.

France is reportedly 20% undecided and that 20% could be ernough to make le pen president of France if it swung. Unlikely. But it only takes one event, story or mommemt to trigger the ball going one way or another.

How many % are undecided in Uk. Pretty high.
There's a big swinging pendulam. And whoever can use it, van gain a big win.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:19:47


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


And Corbyn is at least trying to reach traditional non-voters, those who (quite correctly) felt the choice between Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory was hardly a choice at all.

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:38:16


Post by: Ketara


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

I dunno, if he stopped making up stuff in return for them to pick on (no trains seats at all, eh? No Trots trying to force out MP's anywhere, eh?), he might have more luck. He has more conviction on his principles than May I think, but I also think that he marries quite firmly into the old Soviet Socialist style of 'We say it is and therefore it is', and willingness to stand next to anyone (hello Iranian state TV) to get what he wants. Which aren't at all desirable traits in my book. Certainly, they rank up there next to May's deficiencies.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:45:24


Post by: Steve steveson


 Orlanth wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:

No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation.


No, I am not. You are.
See below for links showing why.

 Steve steveson wrote:

They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.


This has been available from the outset:

https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/overview

Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.


The link you gave relates to people who can show continual residency for 5 years prior to the application, and requires them to apply for citizenship, when many countries do not alow duel citizenship.


 Steve steveson wrote:

No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-guidelines-brexit-negotiations/

12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.

13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.

15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.



Again, your throwing irrelevant things in that don't mean what your claiming.

1) relates to respecting the EU rights of EU citizens working in the base in Cyprus. This is to avoid the situation we have with embassies around the world. Local workers being employed under less protective laws of other countries. Hardly what you are claiming.

2) Is saying that the UK leaving does not effect international agreements. So, for example, Trump can't back out of trade deals claiming that he is dealing with a different entity now the UK has left. The same the other way, that the EU is not going to try and back out of deals with other countries claiming they are a different organization now they are only 27 countries where some documents will refrence something like "The EU and it's 28 member states"

3) Says that any cases with the ECJ at the point of leaving will continue.

Non of these things represent what you claim.

It's not the remainers "drum up a good scare". It's the leave camp manipulating facts, using obfuscation and relying on ignorance or lazyness. Same as the claim about the NHS during the campaign. What has happened to the £350 million? If you have facts to prove your point please present them. No need to resort to bullying and shouting down.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:58:08


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Ketara wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.

I dunno, if he stopped making up stuff in return for them to pick on (no trains seats at all, eh? No Trots trying to force out MP's anywhere, eh?), he might have more luck. He has more conviction on his principles than May I think, but I also think that he marries quite firmly into the old Soviet Socialist style of 'We say it is and therefore it is', and willingness to stand next to anyone (hello Iranian state TV) to get what he wants. Which aren't at all desirable traits in my book. Certainly, they rank up there next to May's deficiencies.



Lucky we don't elect Presidents then, innit?

The train thing - still up in the air. Conflicting reports and evidence. Seats he walked by were apparently all booked - I for one wouldn't sit in one of those.

And.....I'm not aware of any successful or implemented Trotsky coups against sitting Labour MPs? I do clearly remember an utterly pointless Blairite coup which failed miserably?

May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

Corbyn has workable policies in the interests of the majority. Look beyond the man and at the policies. That's what we're electing.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 08:58:09


Post by: Herzlos


 Vaktathi wrote:
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.


You mean just like May is doing? "give us everything or I'll be bloody difficult"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.


Vote til you Boak. Put a number in for any candidate you can tolerate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm now in the "give them feth all" camp. No way should we put up with that gak.


I think £30-40 billion is a fair figure to pay the EU, but anything above that should be laughed out of town.


I don't think we can know until we've negotiated what we're going to remain involved in. That's why the figures are all wild-ass-guestimates at this stage.

I dread to think how much money we're wasting arguing over how much money we might have to hand over. The paperwork bill must be well into 6 figures already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:

The link you gave relates to people who can show continual residency for 5 years prior to the application, and requires them to apply for citizenship, when many countries do not alow duel citizenship.


I think that's the key thing the EU are trying to get at; they want EU citizens that remain in the UK to have the same rights to the EU as if they left. That means not having to give up EU citizenship in order to stay in the EU. It's not about them being bound to different laws, it's just about them not having to give up citizenship.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 09:33:12


Post by: r_squared


Just voted Labour in my local council election, for what good it will do.
We've got UKIP/ conservative run council here, and to be fair to them, they do a reasonable job of filling in potholes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory.



That made me chuckle, I quite like the sound of FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR though, sounds like it'd have a bit of a kick.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 09:38:02


Post by: Ketara


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Lucky we don't elect Presidents then, innit?

We're closer than we ever have been, sadly. Tony Blair rerigged a good chunk of the system in that direction, by making the House of Lords more subservient to the ruling party, setting in motion the abolition of the Law Lords in favour of politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court, and so on. We're not quite at the American level yet, but it's notable, I think, that the last real period of cabinet responsibility was probably John Major, and even he was stepping into Thatcher's recently vacated dicatatorial shoes.

The train thing - still up in the air. Conflicting reports and evidence. Seats he walked by were apparently all booked - I for one wouldn't sit in one of those.

I'm going to be blunt, you can literally see the footage. I have. I know what a reserved seat looks like on that service, I've ridden them. They're marked in a certain way. The seats in those videos aren't. If you're going to quarrel with literal video footage, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I get that you want to promote an alternative to May, but the fact is that Corbyn got caught out making stuff up to try and score a political point. Whether Branson should or shouldn't have released the footage is fine debate in it's own right, but it's established there were seats. IIRC, he even admitted it about three days later, attached to a load of guff about how he meant to be talking more generally.

And.....I'm not aware of any successful or implemented Trotsky coups against sitting Labour MPs? I do clearly remember an utterly pointless Blairite coup which failed miserably?

There's been all sorts of details in the Eye, if you want to go and dig for them. They'll probably have republished some of them in the Annual. It's not the sort of thing you find in the newspapers, it's too local.

The general gist, I do believe, has been attempts to take things over on a local level in order to force through different MP's at the next election. They've met with mixed success, IIRC, some local branches pushed back quite hard, others not so much. Their efforts have flagged of late though, because now Corbyn isn't flavour of the month, and has generally just been shown to be a bit of a naff leader even when nobody's trying to actively depose him, people are less willing to believe it's just the evil press selling him short. Also, lot of their press apparatus (the Canary, for example), has been making increasingly daft and disprovable claims.

I think that this election has shot any further attempts by them in the foot, they haven't managed to dominate at a local level anywhere near to the extent they'd hoped. McCluskey's power base has trembled slightly due to his various attempts to rig votes, and although he's remained in power, he's set up quite a lot of other Union enemies in doing so. And attempts to gain control of the NEC have been piecemeal at best, they needed another one or two clear runs at it.

All this in turn has crippled Corbyn further still, having cut his ties with the Parliamentary MP support base. His original hope was to use the time in between elections to wedge his Momentum and Union supporters into key Labour positions, but it's met with far harder resistance than they imagined, especially since a lot of the grassroots are now deserting him. It's why he agreed to the election, he's unlikely to be in a better position in two years, quite the opposite. It's now or never.

May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.

Corbyn has workable policies in the interests of the majority. Look beyond the man and at the policies. That's what we're electing.

Link to them please? I wasn't aware he'd set out his manifesto yet, all I've seen is the usual vague guff on two or three points he reckons he can hammer the Tories on. And even those have been piecemeal at best (Trident confusion, anyone?)


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 10:08:01


Post by: r_squared


 Ketara wrote:
May and her Tories are a clear and present danger to the UK. They'll sell us, as they always do, to the lowest bidder. They'll strip away the NHS. Privatise anything they can get their grubby mitts on.

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.


To be fair, that was the red Tories. Corbyn appears to be a more traditional socialist, and has stated his support for the NHS, and the re-nationalisation of the rail Infrastructure.
So the choice is a party you know absolutely are committed to privatisation as an ideology, and one that has supporters of privatisation, but has a leader and party members that support nationalisation.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 10:15:14


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I have returned from doing my civic duty.

I take back what I said about filling in every box - there were ten candidates in my area

None the less. isn't it great to walk into the village hall, say hello to the staff, and get your vote, without any of this voter ID nonsense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And Corbyn is at least trying to reach traditional non-voters, those who (quite correctly) felt the choice between Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR Tory was hardly a choice at all.

Britain is more Socialist at its core than many might wish to believe - and if the Gutter Press would stop making stuff up about him, we might see a much needed shift to the centre ground.


Corbyn, by all accounts, is a decent guy who stands up for things he believes in, unlike the red and blue Blairites that dominate British politics.

But as a politician and a leader of a political party, he's bloody hopeless.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 10:41:49


Post by: Herzlos


 Ketara wrote:

You mean like signing the NHS up to PFI? Cor, I seem to remember some blokes in red rosettes doing that too. That's because the reasons for privatisation are more about core fundamental issues with our taxation and funding setup in a short termist political system as opposed to something delineated on vague party lines.


As said, that was Tory-light. I think he means things like contracting out departments/functions to private companies, rather than using private funding to get stuff built earlier (at extortionate rates). The latter is pure short-termism that we'll eventually learn from and move on, but the former is more damaging.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 10:47:14


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


And on the plus side, vote counting doesn't start until tomorrow, so I won't have to wait until 3am to see the results coming in from places like Peckham North


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 11:20:17


Post by: Kilkrazy


I was the first person to vote in Henley!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 11:49:44


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:

Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.


Check the wording, the legal restrictions do not expire, and are already in place so dont need to be currently added as the U currently has thrm as an EU member state.

 r_squared wrote:

From your own link quoting Reuters...

Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.

"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.


In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.


However the means to do this should be within the EU itself, however the EU wants to place the treaty restriction on London when outside the EU, not on the 27 remaining member states within its aegis.
Hence is not about closing loopholes, as existing laws already cover that.


 r_squared wrote:

You can't keep banging the same old "powerless little Britain" drum. We had our chance, and kept electing UKIP MEPs. We were a big deal in the EU, and had influence, and we squandered it on electing Eurosceptic clowns with no interest in engaging in the political process.


The problem pre-exists before UKIP existed. Thanks for playing.
Also UKIP is only a portion of the MP's the Uk sends to Brussels, Nigel Farage doesnt speak for everyone



 r_squared wrote:

Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening,


Good, so can we expect you to leave remainer la la land, thinking that the negotiations will be fair.
The EU might only offer extremely negative trade deal offers that include said restrictions, if they do a hard Brexit may be necessary to prevent a double punishment.




 r_squared wrote:

however, only a naive fool would think that the UK is going to walk away unscathed, many leavers trumpeted their belief that they were happy to take a financial hit to regain "sovreignty", so no one should be whining that they didn't know this would happen.


Most leave voters, and those who voted remain but are resigned the the fact the UK voted leave understand that we will lose many benefits of EU membership, and knew that prior to the vote.



 r_squared wrote:

It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.


True, but first don't assume that every leave voter or hard Brexitter is of that opinion.
Second deal with your own delusion.

The delusion that Brexit is purely about national pride, and we should get a fair trade deal if we stick at it. Sorry no. There is a lot of EU bias that wants to proactively punish the UK, though the reasons for that varies, from anglo-phobia, to wanting to damage our economy in the hope of attracting over our business centres through to simply raising a price as high as possible for direct profit.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 14:25:00


Post by: AlchemicalSolution


 Whirlwind wrote:
 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
 Whirlwind wrote:

More generally though, I highly, highly doubt any future general election in ten years is going to be fought on the basis of 'Let's get back into Europe' without a major economic catastrophe. I mean, seriously. Right now, we've a million and one pressing problems, from palliative care to our lack of an energy policy beyond 'Kick it down the road another five years'. When those things are still biting us in the arse in ten years, some vague liberal sense of 'how we should all totes come back together in Europe' won't even make Page 5 when it comes to voting choices, and none of the major parties will be running on it. There'll always be far more pressing immediate problems. The only way it will re-emerge is if necessity (aka economic urgency) dictate it.


I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're saying that a serious economic crisis could promote re-joining the EU to the top of the political agenda, presumably on the basis that doing so would strengthen the economy, but the reason that the EU won't be at the top of the agenda otherwise is because the country will be facing a slew of serious economic (investment/resource) challenges. It just looks like faulty logic, to me. If re-joining the EU would be the number one response to an economic crisis, surely by those lights the EU should dominate any conversation about the British economy in any context.

Unless you're saying that membership of the EU would somehow ameliorate an economic crisis but would provide no significant economic advantages under less dire circumstances. Is that what you mean?


Erm, I never said this? I think Ketara stated this not me?


Sorry, I thought I'd corrected it but it must not've saved. I'm still new to these boards.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:04:08


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:08:47


Post by: Ketara


Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:25:21


Post by: Orlanth


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...


It's not real devolution, real devolution was blocked.

Also the commissioners were just a smokescreen, they dont do much and have little real policy power. As a community ombudsman program they work well enough behind sceens, but people are expecting some sort of executive authority because they are elected, but this is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.


Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.

His thinking is along thge lines of: Corbyn will be so toxic post election defeat that I will no longer be toxic. Blair is toxic, and a thoroughly corrupt and evil piece of work, below and beyond pretty much anyone else in UK politics, but he is a master of spin, and may well pull it off.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:27:52


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.


If opinion polls for today's council elections and the GE in June are to be believed, then there might not be a Scottish labour party left!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Orlanth wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...


It's not real devolution, real devolution was blocked.

Also the commissioners were just a smokescreen, they dont do much and have little real policy power. As a community ombudsman program they work well enough behind sceens, but people are expecting some sort of executive authority because they are elected, but this is not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.


Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.


It's better than nothing, and you have to start somewhere.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:31:35


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder if anybody will buy into these new mayors for England? In principal, it sounds like a good idea, and they have some half-decent powers, but I suspect it'll go west like the police and crime commissioners.

No offence to English dakka members, but I've heard a lot of English folk moan about the devolved assemblies over the years, and yet when England is offered some devolution for its regions, nobody is interested.

Very strange...


They asked us two years ago and across the midlands the result was a pretty unanimous no, so they're making us have one anyway (after all the Mayor with Powers they had in Stoke went so badly the they gave up on it)


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:35:44


Post by: Orlanth


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Since Tony Blair has announced he intends to return to the front line in British politics, we may well see him run for one of those. I suspect that would be too small for his ego though, he'd need to be either Mayor Of London, or head of the Scottish Labour Party sitting in Holyrood.


If opinion polls for today's council elections and the GE in June are to be believed, then there might not be a Scottish labour party left!


Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Blair intends to take over after Corbyn.

It's better than nothing, and you have to start somewhere.


Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:36:57


Post by: Ketara


 Orlanth wrote:


Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt.



This was a funny joke.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:43:43


Post by: Future War Cultist


@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 15:50:31


Post by: Ketara


 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 16:33:40


Post by: feeder


If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 17:50:14


Post by: Herzlos




Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.


It'd be pretty embarrassing if the tories couldn't improve on their single seat. That said; whilst SNP still get a majority eith indyref2 in thrir manifesto, they'll keep pushing for it. Polls have it more popular than Brexit and we're still pushing on with that...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 18:00:54


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Herzlos wrote:


Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.


It'd be pretty embarrassing if the tories couldn't improve on their single seat. That said; whilst SNP still get a majority eith indyref2 in thrir manifesto, they'll keep pushing for it. Polls have it more popular than Brexit and we're still pushing on with that...


This admission may shock people given my earlier opinions, but I voted Tory today for the first time ever...

I put a 9 in the box next to the Tory candidate


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 19:13:20


Post by: Whirlwind


 r_squared wrote:
Just voted Labour in my local council election, for what good it will do.
We've got UKIP/ conservative run council here, and to be fair to them, they do a reasonable job of filling in potholes.


Local Councils work differently to national government. The things that get achieved like filling pot holes is all done by the Council employees not the Councillors. Unlike the civil service which work for the government of the day (hence you see a merry-go-round whenever the party changes), local government officers are independent of local Councillors and work on behalf of the local populace. A local Councillor can't tell a local authority officer what to do and what pot hole to fill for example, that's the remit of the officers to decide as they are the experts. Councillors make the strategic decisions (such as how much funding highways have, strategic housing plans etc). For the most part these plans come from the recommendation of the officers anyway, guided by the 'strategic vision' of the Councillors. It's very rare for example for Council officers to submit such documents to the Council that are then rejected (this only really happens in hung Councils). The reality is that the person with the most power in a Council is usually the Chief Executive not the Councillors despite what they like to think - most Councils would work just fine without Councillors (albeit being a mini dictatorship directed by the Chief Exec, and hence why you have Councillors to stop this).

As such I'd recommend you are always wary about any Councillor stating he managed to ensure a specific action was taken in an area, because the likelihood it would have happened whether they were present or not.

But I have done my part and voted, not that it will make much difference, too much blue blood. Happily walked past the Tory Councillor talking about how to vote strategically to remove the Tories though....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 feeder wrote:
If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.


You mean this Fry. Think he would fit perfectly in either the Tory or Labour party....




UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 19:23:38


Post by: Ketara


I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 20:04:39


Post by: feeder


 Whirlwind wrote:

 feeder wrote:
If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.


You mean this Fry. Think he would fit perfectly in either the Tory or Labour party....




If banter from MtW is any indication, that clip would put Philip J Fry firmly at the head of the Lib Dem party.

I was, of course, referring to this Fry:



From his talks, I guess he would be Labour.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 20:30:32


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!


Why would you even consider digging up that grave. ?
Your resurrecting a monster.

Tony Blair has more baggage, bad press and general being himself to put off alot of people.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 20:44:39


Post by: Orlanth


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!


I would not include John Prescott in any list that didnt involve arrest warrants.

Anyway, just because I said there are New Labour veterans who would make a better choice of leader than Blair doesnt make me a Blairite - I have been quite consistent on my opinions on New Labour. Besids being better than Blair isnt exactly a high passmark.

Anyway for those who think there are no viable leaders from the New Labour era, I can name two Jack Straw and John Reid. Both were competent and while Staw was lefty he had the moral gumption to oppose Blair on the Iraq war and even resigned as a result, most politicians who resign do so to advance their careers by the back door, Like Livingstone or BoJo, Jack Straw took a hit on genuine ethical grounds and won my respect, sadly he is a tad old. John Reid was the most competent New Labour leadrer outside of the monster Blair himself, and didnt sell out the nation in the process. He is a sitting peer sadly.
Anyway I think of two who had value, there may well be more before having to scrape the barrel.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:08:37


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Ketara wrote:
I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.


How on earth would they know? Exit polls?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:32:57


Post by: jhe90


 Orlanth wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!


I would not include John Prescott in any list that didnt involve arrest warrants.

Anyway, just because I said there are New Labour veterans who would make a better choice of leader than Blair doesnt make me a Blairite - I have been quite consistent on my opinions on New Labour. Besids being better than Blair isnt exactly a high passmark.

Anyway for those who think there are no viable leaders from the New Labour era, I can name two Jack Straw and John Reid. Both were competent and while Staw was lefty he had the moral gumption to oppose Blair on the Iraq war and even resigned as a result, most politicians who resign do so to advance their careers by the back door, Like Livingstone or BoJo, Jack Straw took a hit on genuine ethical grounds and won my respect, sadly he is a tad old. John Reid was the most competent New Labour leadrer outside of the monster Blair himself, and didnt sell out the nation in the process. He is a sitting peer sadly.
Anyway I think of two who had value, there may well be more before having to scrape the barrel.


Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:38:03


Post by: Orlanth


 jhe90 wrote:


Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.


Having a competent leader doesnt make the problems go away, it simple means they are less likely to get worse through poor decision making.

I have little faith in Theresa May's ability, but the alternatives are worse. Both Tories and Labour have potential leaders far more fit than the ones we have.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:46:07


Post by: r_squared


 Orlanth wrote:
 r_squared wrote:

Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.


Check the wording, the legal restrictions do not expire, and are already in place so dont need to be currently added as the U currently has thrm as an EU member state.


I made mistake here, I was referring to paras 15 and 16, not 17.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So, rather than put words in your mouth I will simply re-iterate that para 15 discuss the EUs desire to ensure that any legal problems that occur before we leave, are dealt with under the current legal mechanisms which include arbitration by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Para 16 concerns the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with complications and unforseen situations. I believe this is the part that is troubling you?

This should be done bearing in mind the Union's interest to effectively protect its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union. (CJEU)


You feel that the EU are trying to make us answerable to the CJEU in any dispute post Brexit, and that is what they're trying for here. Well, this is down to the Govt to accede to, and I think they'd be pretty foolish to agree to what could be considered a partisan court. That's if the UK Govt believes the CJEU to be partisan in its rulings. If it was proved to be such, then I imagine that it could open up a can of worms regarding any previous judgements.
However, it is still only a statement of intent, and not currently binding on us, unless we agree to it.

 Orlanth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

From your own link quoting Reuters...

Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.

"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.


In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.


However the means to do this should be within the EU itself, however the EU wants to place the treaty restriction on London when outside the EU, not on the 27 remaining member states within its aegis.
Hence is not about closing loopholes, as existing laws already cover that.


Not really, as we've not left the EU before, and the EU hasn't had to craft legislation to cover a country that was the EU's financial hub, deciding to leave. It's pretty simple to see a situation exactly as Maijoor describes happening and I imagine the EU is keen to protect its interests.
That maybe in the form of a change in the rules whereby the UK, in order to maintain passporting rights agrees to comply with this legislation. Passporting rights are the EU's after all, and if we want them, we have to play ball.
If that means that we can't deregulate to our hearts content because we want to maintain this access, then that's what will happen, otherwise we'll probably need to abandon those passporting rights altogether.

 Orlanth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening,


Good, so can we expect you to leave remainer la la land, thinking that the negotiations will be fair.
The EU might only offer extremely negative trade deal offers that include said restrictions, if they do a hard Brexit may be necessary to prevent a double punishment.


Remainer la la land? That's feeble.
No one on the remain side has thought anything other than that negotiations will probably be pretty gritty, that's for sure.

 Orlanth wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.


True, but first don't assume that every leave voter or hard Brexitter is of that opinion.
Second deal with your own delusion.

The delusion that Brexit is purely about national pride


You're having to mis-quote me out of context to make your argument.
If you are referring to this...

 r_squared wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.


We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.

We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.


That was in response to Theresa May's stance on being a "difficult woman", and her insistence on using stubbornness and slogans instead of diplomacy. But it seems to have touched a nerve with you particularly, because you keep banging on about it.

 Orlanth wrote:

and we should get a fair trade deal if we stick at it. Sorry no. There is a lot of EU bias that wants to proactively punish the UK, though the reasons for that varies, from anglo-phobia, to wanting to damage our economy in the hope of attracting over our business centres through to simply raising a price as high as possible for direct profit.


It is not in the interests of the EU to "punish" the UK, apparently Brexit is already punishment enough. Many of their own nations would stand to lose a great deal if we tank, however, it is in their interests to ensure that we don't get a better deal by leaving.
There has to be benefits to being in the club, and as many many people have pointed out, we can't leave the golf club, but expect to keep access to the subsidised, members only bar.

I think you're reading far too much malice into the motivations of the EU, it's OK to be cautious, but treating the EU like a hostile enemy is likely to end up with us all having to accept the worst possible outcome, which will almost certainly hit us harder. However, seeing as you wanted to leave the EU, I think you may see the institution as a negative force, and are ready to believe that they wish us harm, so I'm not going to try further to dissuade you of this idea.

Anyway, we're going around in circles now, and this has devolved into more "Brexit bad" nonsense. We all know that Brexit is going to be rubbish, and we're in for a hard time. This thread is supposed to be about which Govt is best placed to lead the country for the next 5 years, that's what I'm going to talk about from now on.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:48:52


Post by: jhe90


 Orlanth wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:


Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.


Having a competent leader doesnt make the problems go away, it simple means they are less likely to get worse through poor decision making.

I have little faith in Theresa May's ability, but the alternatives are worse. Both Tories and Labour have potential leaders far more fit than the ones we have.


Theresa May was also pretty ruthless in putting Cameron loyalists from cabinet level.
She removed a few challengers by making enemies closer ala BoJo, or exile like thr former chancler.

True, a good labour leader could hold them at least better together on surface and reign in the divides more than now.
Corbyn has such as past history of being a party rebel, abit out spoken so that might effect his ability to reign others in.

Good partly leaders are few and fat between.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/04 22:55:48


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Orlanth

'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'

Ha, good one.


Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!


I'm not sure it's possible to pull Prescott out of the Lords...literally.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 00:28:23


Post by: Orlanth


 r_squared wrote:

I made mistake here, I was referring to paras 15 and 16, not 17.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So, rather than put words in your mouth I will simply re-iterate that para 15 discuss the EUs desire to ensure that any legal problems that occur before we leave, are dealt with under the current legal mechanisms which include arbitration by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Para 16 concerns the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with complications and unforseen situations. I believe this is the part that is troubling you?


This is what is happening, but it is not all that is happening. We have secondary comments from EU leaders that the Uk should expect to come under EU rulings on any trade iss ue that includes trade with the EU, this includes third party countries not in the EU if the Uk can undercut the EU and make it uncompetitive.

 r_squared wrote:

You feel that the EU are trying to make us answerable to the CJEU in any dispute post Brexit, and that is what they're trying for here. Well, this is down to the Govt to accede to, and I think they'd be pretty foolish to agree to what could be considered a partisan court. That's if the UK Govt believes the CJEU to be partisan in its rulings. If it was proved to be such, then I imagine that it could open up a can of worms regarding any previous judgements.


The European Court is known for being highly politicised, this is the feeling in Whitehall at least.
If the European court has jurisdiction on disputes between application of trade agreements between the Uk and EU we will be in a very bad position long term.

 r_squared wrote:

However, it is still only a statement of intent, and not currently binding on us, unless we agree to it.


The concern is that we might be given a choice, hard Brexit or comply with terms offered. We arent even being allowed to see terms until we agree to an exit payment plan up front, which says a lot frankly.
If we agree to pay we have lost half the benefit of hard Brexit already.


 r_squared wrote:

Not really, as we've not left the EU before, and the EU hasn't had to craft legislation to cover a country that was the EU's financial hub, deciding to leave. It's pretty simple to see a situation exactly as Maijoor describes happening and I imagine the EU is keen to protect its interests.


I am not unsympathetic to the EU's concerns, however the safeguards are so heavy handed they cripple our own ability to do trade. When we add to this tarriff agreements, payment contribution agreements and selective trade restrictions intended to steal trsde from London we are left with a poisoned cocktail.

 r_squared wrote:

That maybe in the form of a change in the rules whereby the UK, in order to maintain passporting rights agrees to comply with this legislation. Passporting rights are the EU's after all, and if we want them, we have to play ball.


We might be able to agree to jump through EU hoops while passporting, that would be fair. Fair enough that I doubt we will be offerd that, or it will be rejected if we propose it. Some want Brexit to be punitive. Juncker is very vocal on this, so are the French and so are key players in the German economy.

 r_squared wrote:

If that means that we can't deregulate to our hearts content because we want to maintain this access, then that's what will happen, otherwise we'll probably need to abandon those passporting rights altogether.


If forced to do this there will be temporary hardship, but London qill quickly be enabled to undercut the EU at every turn. The citty will like that, the government will have no choice and it would work.

 r_squared wrote:

No one on the remain side has thought anything other than that negotiations will probably be pretty gritty, that's for sure.


However hard Brexit is looked at with the suffix 'reckless' in much of the press. trade links at any cost will be the reckless part, as the EU will take us to the cleaners.


 r_squared wrote:

You're having to mis-quote me out of context to make your argument.
If you are referring to this...

 r_squared wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.


We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.

We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.


I will accept your correction. However I cannot be criticised for reading your comments at face value. There are too many remainers who are fixated on the dogma that anyone who voted Brexit or hasd since come to agree with it is either a dupe who listened to too much Nigel Farage and is unable to think for themselves; is a 'Little Englander' with a head stuck in the past, or is an alt-right hatemonger hell bent on immigration and race issues. The Guardian is cram full of such assumptions.


 r_squared wrote:

That was in response to Theresa May's stance on being a "difficult woman", and her insistence on using stubbornness and slogans instead of diplomacy. But it seems to have touched a nerve with you particularly, because you keep banging on about it.


Theresa May is self absorbed, apathetic to anything but party and personal interest and piss weak at negotiations. IIRC she has been advised to not to represent us in the negotiations themselves so that we can choose a fiery civil servant with brass balls to do so instead.


 r_squared wrote:

It is not in the interests of the EU to "punish" the UK, apparently Brexit is already punishment enough.


That means different tihngs to different people. To some literally what it says, to others it includes whatever they can gouge out as collateral during the exit.

However others dont think like that at all. Juncker has many times commented that he wants a damaging Brexit. The above comment comes from Tusk, who has the same agenda but is far better at diplomatic phrasing. Personally I am pretty sure Tusk and Juncker are more likelt on the same page than not, and one is only using diplomatic language to mask the heavy punishment they wish to impose. The comments on Gibraltar express exactly that even through Tusks wording.

 r_squared wrote:

There has to be benefits to being in the club, and as many many people have pointed out, we can't leave the golf club, but expect to keep access to the subsidised, members only bar.


Some might think we can get that, but I dont know of any who believed it.


 r_squared wrote:

However, seeing as you wanted to leave the EU, I think you may see the institution as a negative force, and are ready to believe that they wish us harm, so I'm not going to try further to dissuade you of this idea.


Where did I give that impression. I was careful to give two types of Brexit supporter. Those who voted for it and those who came to see that it may not be a bad idea. I wish we didn't as a nation vote for Brexit, but now it has happened and the EU's mask has slipped a little I am convinced that we will be offered fools terms for continued access to trade with the EU and a hard Brexit is likely our best option.
Many remainers are either looking for ways to reverse Brexit or are hoping that the EU will play nice with us, or we will just pony up and cave in to EU demands.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 05:05:43


Post by: r_squared


So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 05:10:31


Post by: Gordon Shumway


I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 06:39:56


Post by: Jadenim


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


Ant & Dec?

/comedy

Sorry, but it's pretty bad over here, Cameron has fractured the country massively with the fethed up referendum* and there is precisely zero appetite for reconciliation at the moment.

*It should have been a 65% super majority for major constitutional change (which would represent an absolute majority of the electorate even at a 70%ish turnout), legally binding and with a single, agreed, leave proposal developed by a house committee, so that there was clarity on what was being voted for. Instead we got a simple majority (actually representing only 37% of the electorate) voting for a wildly varying, and often contradictory, set of proposals (most of which said "but we'll stay in the single market", remember that?) in an advisory referendum, which is now being taken as an unquestionable mandate from the heavens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and if you have the gall to suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea and won't all be rainbows and unicorns, you get branded a traitor and a remoaner and told that you should leave your own country.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 07:33:10


Post by: Steve steveson


 r_squared wrote:
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.

I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 07:34:43


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Well, once again, it looks like John Curtice was spot on with his predictions: the Tories are cashing in on the UKIP vote.

If this is carried over to the General Election, UKIP could be heading for extinction, because they have just had an almighty kick up the rear.

As I've said before I don't like UKIP - never have, never will, but I believe that a multiparty democracy is a good thing, and to see another small party crushed, is not good for our democracy in the long run...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


Some of our political leaders are so bad, they make Trump look like FDR.

In all honesty, our politics is just as bad as the USA in many respects. I doubt if it's any consolation to you, but your nation is not unique in having idiots in charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.

I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.


Council elections always have low turnouts. I fully expect the Lib Dems to make gains in June.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 07:59:02


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Steve steveson wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.

I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.


Speaking for myself, I voted for an historically successful organised local independent group in my local election, but I probably will vote Lib-Dem at the general. There won't be any independents standing, as it's a local group.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 08:01:57


Post by: jhe90


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, once again, it looks like John Curtice was spot on with his predictions: the Tories are cashing in on the UKIP vote.

If this is carried over to the General Election, UKIP could be heading for extinction, because they have just had an almighty kick up the rear.

As I've said before I don't like UKIP - never have, never will, but I believe that a multiparty democracy is a good thing, and to see another small party crushed, is not good for our democracy in the long run...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


Some of our political leaders are so bad, they make Trump look like FDR.

In all honesty, our politics is just as bad as the USA in many respects. I doubt if it's any consolation to you, but your nation is not unique in having idiots in charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.

I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.


Council elections always have low turnouts. I fully expect the Lib Dems to make gains in June.


I'm not sure how actuate this will be.
Council vote on local issues and sometimes people vote entirely out of sync.
You may not like lib Dems but have a great lib dem councler.

Not always gonna follow perfectly.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 08:44:14


Post by: Ketara


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


Errrrr.....*riffles through exceedingly short list of good MP's*

I'd have no real objections to Labour's Frank Field. Proper working class, intelligent enough to have a academic bibliography as long as your arm, no real scandals, history of problems with New Labour, frontbench experience. Against climate change, headed up a child poverty group in the past, chaired a lot of successful committees, etc. His only problem is that he's getting on a bit at 74, and due to his religion, he has a history of opposing maintaining abortion at the current time limit. As I don't see anything along those lines ever getting forced back through the house again though (too many female and modern-minded MP's), he'd probably be able to put out a good manifesto.

Whether he'd be a good leader? Well, unlike Corbyn, he has actually held a number of ministerial and shadow ministeral roles, and is well respected by both Tory & Labour parties alike. He hasn't just sat on the backbenches lobbing insults his entire political career. So he's probably the dream leader I'd parachute into Labour to try and fix it up right now. I'd probably stick Kevin Barron in as his Deputy, and Margaret Beckett/Graham Allen/Andrew Smith in the cabinet somewhere.

For Tories...? Hmmmm. Bit more challenging. I personally still don't really have a problem with David Davis. He's taken a lot of flak over Brexit lately, but I'm of the opinion if Buddha himself had been sitting in his chair he'd be being asked about his divinity about now. I've never minded William Hague much, but he's retired now. David Amess and Bill Cash have a good solid legislative and ethical history in Parliament, but not much frontbench experience. Oliver Heald has some good experience and hasn't done anything too objectionable.


In other words, there are people about, but I doubt I'll see any of them rise to power. The problem, I suspect, is that the ones best suited to it are going to be the ones least likely to aim for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.


How on earth would they know? Exit polls?


I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.

I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 08:53:33


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.


Errrrr.....*riffles through exceedingly short list of good MP's*

I'd have no real objections to Labour's Frank Field. Proper working class, intelligent enough to have a academic bibliography as long as your arm, no real scandals, history of problems with New Labour, frontbench experience. Against climate change, headed up a child poverty group in the past, chaired a lot of successful committees, etc. His only problem is that he's getting on a bit at 74, and due to his religion, he has a history of opposing maintaining abortion at the current time limit. As I don't see anything along those lines ever getting forced back through the house again though (too many female and modern-minded MP's), he'd probably be able to put out a good manifesto.

Whether he'd be a good leader? Well, unlike Corbyn, he has actually held a number of ministerial and shadow ministeral roles, and is well respected by both Tory & Labour parties alike. He hasn't just sat on the backbenches lobbing insults his entire political career. So he's probably the dream leader I'd parachute into Labour to try and fix it up right now. I'd probably stick Kevin Barron in as his Deputy, and Margaret Beckett/Graham Allen/Andrew Smith in the cabinet somewhere.

For Tories...? Hmmmm. Bit more challenging. I personally still don't really have a problem with David Davis. He's taken a lot of flak over Brexit lately, but I'm of the opinion if Buddha himself had been sitting in his chair he'd be being asked about his divinity about now. I've never minded William Hague much, but he's retired now. David Amess and Bill Cash have a good solid legislative and ethical history in Parliament, but not much frontbench experience. Oliver Heald has some good experience and hasn't done anything too objectionable.


In other words, there are people about, but I doubt I'll see any of them rise to power. The problem, I suspect, is that the ones best suited to it are going to be the ones least likely to aim for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.


How on earth would they know? Exit polls?


I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.

I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.


True. And I'm sure though less experienced there's a few decent mps on the back bench who may yet with time prove to be decent leaders.
One of our local mps had hr not had a massive scandal would of maybe made defense secretary.

He was former military, doing alright... Until he tan into a rather large ice berg.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 10:33:43


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Ketara wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.

I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.


Isn't that illegal? Wikipedia says this on the matter:

Some countries, such as the United Kingdom or Germany, have made it a criminal offence to release exit poll figures before all polling stations have closed,



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 10:40:54


Post by: Ketara


Well, they wouldn't have 'released' the figures, it would just be the party themselves making use of them. A 17 year old telling me that they think the result is going to be close so can I please get down the polling station pronto (if I'm so inclined please thank you very much) hardly qualifies as releasing the exit poll.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 11:05:30


Post by: Future War Cultist


The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 11:19:18


Post by: jhe90


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.

I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.


Isn't that illegal? Wikipedia says this on the matter:

Some countries, such as the United Kingdom or Germany, have made it a criminal offence to release exit poll figures before all polling stations have closed,



Could just be thr know the seat is a very marginal position.
And thus from a estimate of them say that they believe its going to be very close and people should got if they want result.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 11:54:11


Post by: Ketara


 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 12:12:56


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


Tat is strange. That's SNP, Labour Fortress lands.
Torries in Scotland are ment to be like mythical unicorns..



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 12:23:44


Post by: Ketara


 jhe90 wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


Tat is strange. That's SNP, Labour Fortress lands.
Torries in Scotland are ment to be like mythical unicorns..



I saw a BBC article once about a year back where they had a guy wandering around and popping questions about Tory recent actions/manifesto pledges to the locals in various places in Scotland. Funnily enough, practically all the Scots they met said they were things they'd vote for (without being told that they were Tory related). Then upon being asked their opinion of the Tories, the same people would hawk and scoff and say they'd never vote for them in a million years.

The result of the social experiment was that the Scottish aren't aren't so much proportionately more left-wing than the English as it is they have a hangup on the Tory brand left over from Thatcher. I've no idea if it would be consistently true on a larger more measured sample, but if it is the case, we could well see more people in Scotland turning Tory as Thatcher recedes into the distant past.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 12:29:01


Post by: Steve steveson


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.

If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.

I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.


The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.

I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.


Speaking for myself, I voted for an historically successful organised local independent group in my local election, but I probably will vote Lib-Dem at the general. There won't be any independents standing, as it's a local group.


That's the other place Lib Dems lose out in local elections. My feeling is that not only are they generally less likely to vote in local elections, those that might support them nationally are more likely to vote based on the issues presented rather than party allegiance.

I suspect Tory, Labour and UKIP changes will be indicative of the general election, but Lib Dems less so.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 12:40:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Ketara wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


Tat is strange. That's SNP, Labour Fortress lands.
Torries in Scotland are ment to be like mythical unicorns..



I saw a BBC article once about a year back where they had a guy wandering around and popping questions about Tory recent actions/manifesto pledges to the locals in various places in Scotland. Funnily enough, practically all the Scots they met said they were things they'd vote for (without being told that they were Tory related). Then upon being asked their opinion of the Tories, the same people would hawk and scoff and say they'd never vote for them in a million years.

The result of the social experiment was that the Scottish aren't aren't so much proportionately more left-wing than the English as it is they have a hangup on the Tory brand left over from Thatcher. I've no idea if it would be consistently true on a larger more measured sample, but if it is the case, we could well see more people in Scotland turning Tory as Thatcher recedes into the distant past.


Radio 4 had a piece about a similar "test" regarding Labour Party policies. It wasn't Scotland specifically, but it showed that a proportion of people choose policies based on their party preference rather than a choice of the policy without knowing where it comes from.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 12:47:58


Post by: Herzlos


 jhe90 wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


Tat is strange. That's SNP, Labour Fortress lands.
Torries in Scotland are ment to be like mythical unicorns..



The Tories campaign up here has pretty much been "Vote Tory to block another indy referendum". Since that was 45/55, there's likely a lot of people who'd be swayed.

Sad to see that currently, we're lost 30 Labour seats to Tory, they really are losing pretty badly here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:

The result of the social experiment was that the Scottish aren't aren't so much proportionately more left-wing than the English as it is they have a hangup on the Tory brand left over from Thatcher. I've no idea if it would be consistently true on a larger more measured sample, but if it is the case, we could well see more people in Scotland turning Tory as Thatcher recedes into the distant past.


I'm sure there will be pubs up here where the mere mention of Thatcher will still have punters making the sign of the cross. They are absolutely toxic in working class / labour areas, because she's blamed for destroying entire industries and economies.

Give it a few generations and we'll maybe just look on them as only being a bit nasty.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 14:15:36


Post by: jhe90


Herzlos wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


Tat is strange. That's SNP, Labour Fortress lands.
Torries in Scotland are ment to be like mythical unicorns..



The Tories campaign up here has pretty much been "Vote Tory to block another indy referendum". Since that was 45/55, there's likely a lot of people who'd be swayed.

Sad to see that currently, we're lost 30 Labour seats to Tory, they really are losing pretty badly here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:

The result of the social experiment was that the Scottish aren't aren't so much proportionately more left-wing than the English as it is they have a hangup on the Tory brand left over from Thatcher. I've no idea if it would be consistently true on a larger more measured sample, but if it is the case, we could well see more people in Scotland turning Tory as Thatcher recedes into the distant past.


I'm sure there will be pubs up here where the mere mention of Thatcher will still have punters making the sign of the cross. They are absolutely toxic in working class / labour areas, because she's blamed for destroying entire industries and economies.

Give it a few generations and we'll maybe just look on them as only being a bit nasty.


Well if this is telling, and this is any basis on general, Labour need to look seriously at defending seats they do have, holding ground and count it a good day if they only make minimal losses to Tory party.

Labour need to seriously think if they want to not be taking at least one parli.ent to rebuild strengh.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 14:26:23


Post by: Ketara


Well. We all know Corbyn will feth this up, probably shed a good sixty seats to the Tories, and then get booted.

So the question has to be; who will replace him? My bets are on Chuka Umunna making a play for it, or Sadiq Khan. Angela Eagle will likely make another run. Apparently a Labour poll group has been roadtesting some newbie called Rebecca Long-Bailey as a potential leader, but I don't reckon she's got the chops to fend off the others.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 14:51:01


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Ketara wrote:
Well. We all know Corbyn will feth this up, probably shed a good sixty seats to the Tories, and then get booted.

So the question has to be; who will replace him? My bets are on Chuka Umunna making a play for it, or Sadiq Khan. Angela Eagle will likely make another run. Apparently a Labour poll group has been roadtesting some newbie called Rebecca Long-Bailey as a potential leader, but I don't reckon she's got the chops to fend off the others.


If that's the best labour can offer as a replacement for Corbyn, they'd be better off sticking with him

On a serious note, those are awful choices for a future Labour leader. Lightweights and Blairites to a man and woman.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 14:58:55


Post by: Ketara


My bets are on Eagle seizing it this time. Her or Sadiq are probably the best of the four, but I'm dubious whether Sadiq would want to abandon the rest of his term in his snug sinecure as Mayor to pilot a sinking ship. He'll probably wait until Corbyn's replacement gets trashed.

I suppose Burnham could give it another go, but I think he's totally focused on moving over to a comfy Mayor position in Manchester.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:03:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Ketara wrote:
My bets are on Eagle seizing it this time. Her or Sadiq are probably the best of the four, but I'm dubious whether Sadiq would want to abandon the rest of his term in his snug sinecure as Mayor to pilot a sinking ship. He'll probably wait until Corbyn's replacement gets trashed.

I suppose Burnham could give it another go, but I think he's totally focused on moving over to a comfy Mayor position in Manchester.


Burnham has just won the Manchester job, and knowing him, 3-4 years of hanging around TV studios lecturing others, whilst claiming a fat pay packet, without actually having to do anything in his new post, will suit him fine.

As for Eagles, I've seen her on TV a few times, and she makes Corbyn look like Bill Clinton.

Even post Corbyn, a bleak future awaits Labour.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:17:16


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


That is genuinely surprising. I was sure the Tories were extinct in Scotland. Could this translate into a similar result during the G.E? Perhaps. If you're Scottish and you sincerely believe in the Union then I can't think of anyone else who you could vote for. I'm also wondering how many Scots are getting fed up with the SNP.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:21:59


Post by: Ketara


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


That is genuinely surprising. I was sure the Tories were extinct in Scotland. Could this translate into a similar result during the G.E? Perhaps. If you're Scottish and you sincerely believe in the Union then I can't think of anyone else who you could vote for. I'm also wondering how many Scots are getting fed up with the SNP.


They've won 142 council seats across Scotland thus far counted, and the SNP have lost 17. Labour's lost a hundred, and another twenty have come off independents. That means the Tories have about 250 seats to the SNP's 350. There's still a few councils left to declare, but it's a crushing Tory advance. Ruth Davidson will be celebrating tonight. If the General Election shows even a vaguely similar result in terms of votes cast, it will destroy the SNP's claim for a fresh referendum.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:24:15


Post by: welshhoppo


Scotland used to be very Tory in the decades past. It's only post Thatcher that they have moved from Tory to Labour and then SNP.

Swansea's council managed to get a larger Labour majority somehow. Those idiots keep doing stupid things to the city and people keep voting them in! Useless council.

But over half of Scotland's population is supposedly anti independence. They have to vote for someone who isn't the snp.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:26:48


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Of course I am slightly bias on this, but I wouldn't read too much into Tory 'gains' in Scotland.

They always peak at the 25% mark, and on a low turnout with a STV voting system?

I'm not losing any sleep on this. The SNP are still on course for 45% of the national vote, which is a pretty damn good achievement for a party in power for 10 years.

Much higher than what the Tories are getting in England.

I'm still confident ahead of June 8th.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:28:36


Post by: Kilkrazy


Oxfordshire falls to No Overall Control! That is largely thanks to me, I believe.

UKIP is collapsing as predicted. I wonder if they have paid out their deposits for the general election...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:30:19


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Tories seem to be doing well so far. Can't say the same for the others.


Yeah, apparently substantial gains have been made in Scotland!


That is genuinely surprising. I was sure the Tories were extinct in Scotland. Could this translate into a similar result during the G.E? Perhaps. If you're Scottish and you sincerely believe in the Union then I can't think of anyone else who you could vote for. I'm also wondering how many Scots are getting fed up with the SNP.


They've won 142 council seats across Scotland thus far counted, and the SNP have lost 17. Labour's lost a hundred, and another twenty have come off independents. That means the Tories have about 250 seats to the SNP's 350. There's still a few councils left to declare, but it's a crushing Tory advance. Ruth Davidson will be celebrating tonight. If the General Election shows even a vaguely similar result in terms of votes cast, it will destroy the SNP's claim for a fresh referendum.


wow... seems Labours rout is pretty extreme. suprised SNP lost ground in there Holy land but yeah, Tory is the Union party now.
Labour is a divided mess and the lib dems are tiny.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 15:32:11


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Oxfordshire falls to No Overall Control! That is largely thanks to me, I believe.

UKIP is collapsing as predicted. I wonder if they have paid out their deposits for the general election...


Yeah, UKIP are dead and buried, with the end result being that they will flock back to the Tories and make the Tories even more right-wing.

Still, some good news: the SNP are still the largest party in my council area, so I'm happy.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 18:01:54


Post by: Steve steveson


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Oxfordshire falls to No Overall Control! That is largely thanks to me, I believe.


You also got rid of that gakker Nimmo Smith. I wonder if his replacement will be any less horrifically incompetent with the roads.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 18:58:25


Post by: Whirlwind


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Yeah, UKIP are dead and buried, with the end result being that they will flock back to the Tories and make the Tories even more right-wing.

Still, some good news: the SNP are still the largest party in my council area, so I'm happy.



Alternatively it's perhaps because we now have TorUKIP as the blue party and those that abandoned more central Tory's for far political right leanings now have made their point and are going back to the grass roots because Tories have just copied UKIPs mantra against the EU.

I haven't really seen the percentages but it looks like SNP are fine. Tories have gained at the expense of Labour more than anything and there doesn't appear to be any swing from SNP (there areas they have lost I would hazard are because of the swing to the Tories from the Labour votes overtaking the SNP static vote. That SNP are the in power party in Scotland and they have retained so much is actually quite impressive. Given that in general local elections bring out more of the older, conservative voters then it's looking good for the SNP in the GE

Now you just have to go independent and stop letting the weak and idiotic Tories and Labour dominate the country from Westminster!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
Well. We all know Corbyn will feth this up, probably shed a good sixty seats to the Tories, and then get booted.

So the question has to be; who will replace him? My bets are on Chuka Umunna making a play for it, or Sadiq Khan. Angela Eagle will likely make another run. Apparently a Labour poll group has been roadtesting some newbie called Rebecca Long-Bailey as a potential leader, but I don't reckon she's got the chops to fend off the others.


Rebecca Long-Bailey did very well on QT last night. Very literate and passionate about what she said and destroyed David Davis whose responses on homelessness equalled Trumps ability to put together a rational argument (and this is the person negotiating our future! ).

Of course one showing does not make her a leader but she does appear to be more inspiring than Corbyn can ever be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:


wow... seems Labours rout is pretty extreme. suprised SNP lost ground in there Holy land but yeah, Tory is the Union party now.
Labour is a divided mess and the lib dems are tiny.


Lib Dems aren't that small. BBC noted that they got 17% of the share (not seen any official figures yet). That's a substantial proportion (and too much to call tiny). What has cost them is the UKIP supporters swinging back to UKIPinblue and because of the first past the post system what was previously a divided electorate between those two parties is now stronger as they've all re-joined one.

But I agree UKIP are dead and buried now, the people don't need UKIP now that they have a larger, older UKIP to choose from.

------

And apparently people are now getting upset because the EU are going to speak less English which well beggars belief really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jean-claude-juncker-english-eu_uk_590c8318e4b0d5d9049bc70c?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 19:09:56


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Whirlwind wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Yeah, UKIP are dead and buried, with the end result being that they will flock back to the Tories and make the Tories even more right-wing.

Still, some good news: the SNP are still the largest party in my council area, so I'm happy.



Alternatively it's perhaps because we now have TorUKIP as blue party that those that abandoned Tory's for far political right leanings now have made their point and go back to the grass roots because Tories have just copied UKIPs mantra against the EU.

I haven't really seen the percentages but it looks like SNP are fine. Tories have gained at the expense of Labour more than anything and there doesn't appear to be any swing from SNP (there areas they have lost I would hazard are because of the swing to the Tories from the Labour votes overtaking the SNP static vote. That SNP are the in power party in Scotland and they have retained so much is actually quite impressive. Given that in general local elections bring out more of the older, conservative voters then it's looking good for the SNP in the GE

Now you just have to go independent and stop letting the weak and idiotic Tories and Labour dominate the country from Westminster!


It's amusing to see the BBC and the MSM trying to push the Tory victory in Scotland mantra, but the figures are out and they speak for themselves.

This is the SNP's best ever local election result. They have won more seats, and are the largest party in more councils than anybody else. Their vote share is at 44%. Compare that to the Tories bragging about reaching 38% of the vote.

By any metric, this is a major victory for the SNP, a party who have been in government for 10 years, and yet, they have INCREASED their councillor numbers.

And all this on a STV voting system. If these numbers hold up for June 8th, it's another SNP landslide in Scotland withy FPTP.

And yet, some people are saying this is a setback for the SNP?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 19:16:00


Post by: Whirlwind


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


This is the SNP's best ever local election result. They have won more seats, and are the largest party in more councils than anybody else. Their vote share is at 44%. Compare that to the Tories bragging about reaching 38% of the vote.

By any metric, this is a major victory for the SNP, a party who have been in government for 10 years, and yet, they have INCREASED their councillor numbers.

And all this on a STV voting system. If these numbers hold up for June 8th, it's another SNP landslide in Scotland withy FPTP.

And yet, some people are saying this is a setback for the SNP?


This is on top that local elections generally favour conservative older leanings. The GE generally at least bring more youthful voters out and they are move favourable to leaving and SNP so yes based on these results I do expect SNP to almost make a clean sweep of Scotland and Labour will probably have none by the end of it).

I think the Tories are hamming up their percentages because with such a clean sweep they will be hard pressed not to have another referendum (though generally I think referendums are a bad idea and SNP should just say vote us in and we'll work towards leaving as an election mandate). After all that is what May is going to do over Brexit.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 19:46:06


Post by: r_squared


The Conservatives, the party that divided country, to unite themselves.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 19:51:35


Post by: Kilkrazy


The Lib-Dems' problem is partly that their traditional strong area of the west country leant pretty strongly towards Breit and the Lib-Dems are the strongest leaning anti-Brexit party.

However, the Lib-Dems can hope to pick up votes in urbane areas like Richmond-on-Thames.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 20:23:37


Post by: Ketara


 Whirlwind wrote:

Rebecca Long-Bailey did very well on QT last night. Very literate and passionate about what she said and destroyed David Davis whose responses on homelessness equalled Trumps ability to put together a rational argument (and this is the person negotiating our future! ).

Of course one showing does not make her a leader but she does appear to be more inspiring than Corbyn can ever be.


When I say she hasn't the chops, I'm referring to her experience level. Perceptions of debates vary depending on the viewer and their biases, after all, not to mention how bad a day any one of the interviewees is having!

Long-Bailey joined in 2015, and she only even got into Corbyn's shadow Cabinet after he ran out of anyone else but the fresh facers. Christ, she didn't even have to fight a proper campaign to be an MP, she was an all woman shortlist. I mean, we're literally talking about a year as an MP, during which she was stuffed into the NEC by Corbyn, followed by seven months as a Junior shadow Minister after the mass resignations, and now three months as a senior shadow minister after the second round of defections.

And it shows, apparently she got nailed to wall by Andrew Neil for not knowing essential industrial schemes that are part of her portfolio, and I've read elsewhere she got pinned down on the Marr show you're referring to when she got asked where the £63 billion pounds a Corbyn Government says it would spend would come from and hadn't a clue. Not a great showing for the Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy! She simply hasn't been around long enough to even know what her last job is, let alone her current one. Christ knows what would happen if you inserted her as a Junior Minister, let alone the First Among Equals!

If she had some sort of appeal that could help bring the Labour Party back, it might be worth it. But she literally got a second class degree in politics from an ex-polytechnic and then went to work for a solicitors firm! Something tells me she ain't going be bringing those working class votes rolling back!

The Labour Party talent tap is dry. Practically every experienced senior politician is long discredited or retired, and all their carefully groomed juniors have shown themselves substanceless and talentless for anything that isn't Westminster intrigue. They've turned into such a poisoned chalice that the few decent ones left take one look at it and go, 'Nah, I'd rather retire in peace at some point in the next decade'. All that's left are the arselickers that just jumped onto the first rung in the last two elections, who collectively have less experience than just a single one of the oldies (say, Frank Field).

What a pathetic, and truly sad shambles for the Party that introduced the NHS.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 21:02:04


Post by: welshhoppo


Wow, these council results have had the Tories absolutely murder labour and UKIP across the board.


Even the valleys of Wales have gone against them. Poor sods.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 21:13:14


Post by: jhe90


 welshhoppo wrote:
Wow, these council results have had the Tories absolutely murder labour and UKIP across the board.


Even the valleys of Wales have gone against them. Poor sods.


The fact the bastions and great ancestral labour realms long held for decades are weakening.
Corbyn is going to not be a leader if they lose the old fortresses.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 21:34:19


Post by: Howard A Treesong


These results are a huge warning and there's no time to do anything before the general election but cruise into oblivion. It's going to be a disaster.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 22:00:53


Post by: Whirlwind


 Ketara wrote:


When I say she hasn't the chops, I'm referring to her experience level. Perceptions of debates vary depending on the viewer and their biases, after all, not to mention how bad a day any one of the interviewees is having!

Long-Bailey joined in 2015, and she only even got into Corbyn's shadow Cabinet after he ran out of anyone else but the fresh facers. Christ, she didn't even have to fight a proper campaign to be an MP, she was an all woman shortlist. I mean, we're literally talking about a year as an MP, during which she was stuffed into the NEC by Corbyn, followed by seven months as a Junior shadow Minister after the mass resignations, and now three months as a senior shadow minister after the second round of defections.


There is no doubt she is inexperienced, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if it brings a fresh perspective to the table. You might class it as only inexperience in the weird world of politics we have currently and to be honest it's not really that this works, provides the country sensible options or gives the country full debates on the issues to hand. For the most part this election has so far been name calling and telling the other side they are 'useless' (paraphrasing). I'm less bothered about the specific schemes as someone that has been in a job for three months isn't likely to know everything (which would apply to us all) and hence it would be easy to pick and choose a scheme they haven't read up on (depending on what else they have been up to). Also not announcing anything before their manifesto is out is not really an unwise move in case things haven't been finalised (we saw how well Hammonds comments went on taxes for example).

It would indeed be a gamble to put her into the PM position, she might be out of her depth, but on the other hand the political inexperience might hand favour her if she was more to the point and she skewered (metaphorically) week on week (I can only hope as May is so weak anyway and can't cope with anything other than prepared soundbites and believe that any real debate and she will flounder, hence why she is avoiding the TV debate like the plague). On the other hand if anything shows us from this election is that knowing your stuff is far less important than just repeating the same mantra over and over and instilling irrational fear of "those people over there", so if she can engage an electorate through passion it might be enough.

If she had some sort of appeal that could help bring the Labour Party back, it might be worth it. But she literally got a second class degree in politics from an ex-polytechnic and then went to work for a solicitors firm! Something tells me she ain't going be bringing those working class votes rolling back!


I think Labour are going to have to accept at some point that going full hog and far left to try and only pander to the working class is never going to get them into power. Just not enough people from this category even bother to vote to give Labour a chance and the opportunity for the country to have a balanced parliament that will debate issues rather than just railroad any crackpot scheme through. This is where they were in the 80's and it was only in the 90's with Blair where they moved to the centre that they could capture enough of the populace's imagination that they got a meaningful chance. There's just not enough true socialists left for Labour to win this way. They need to win over people like my middle brother (in a top 2% wage category), who today stated that he liked Tories because they benefit him. When asked about his youngest brother and family (who would be in the bottom 2% of the wage category) and the impacts on the social welfare systems he uses, the middle brother just shrugged his shoulder and repeated it was better for him (needless to say I was vastly disappointed). Until Labour can persuade such people to at least consider Labour they aren't really going to get anywhere.

The Labour Party talent tap is dry. Practically every experienced senior politician is long discredited or retired, and all their carefully groomed juniors have shown themselves substanceless and talentless for anything that isn't Westminster intrigue. They've turned into such a poisoned chalice that the few decent ones left take one look at it and go, 'Nah, I'd rather retire in peace at some point in the next decade'. All that's left are the arselickers that just jumped onto the first rung in the last two elections, who collectively have less experience than just a single one of the oldies (say, Frank Field).


This isn't going to really change though. Corbyn and cronies are doing the best to try and ensure that. The only hope is that someone has hoodwinked them enough that they get and then really change things. However I'd at least like a balanced parliament so we can have debates on what is being proposed. A far right Tory party is just as bad as a far left Labour party!



UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 22:09:03


Post by: r_squared


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
These results are a huge warning and there's no time to do anything before the general election but cruise into oblivion. It's going to be a disaster.


Yes, but on the plus side, the conservatives will reap what they've sown. This is their only chance, as a united party, to prove that their ideology works, almost without opposition. Out of the EU and with no one else to blame they will be entirely acountable for every thing that will happen over the next 5 years.

The left needs to go away, and rebuild itself.
I think it also probably also needs to consolidate into one party too, or accept coalition and cooperation between Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens as the defacto standard, otherwise there will never be another centre left party in power.

Either that or we must push for a major reform to scrap fptp. When Scotland leaves, we will be stuck with the Tories running the show pretty much until some sort of seismic upheaval radically changes the thought process' of England.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 22:25:15


Post by: Ketara


 Whirlwind wrote:

There is no doubt she is inexperienced, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if it brings a fresh perspective to the table. You might class it as only inexperience in the weird world of politics we have currently and to be honest it's not really that this works, provides the country sensible options or gives the country full debates on the issues to hand.


Actually, I kind of do think it's important. I know everyone complains about professional politicians, and I agree with that. Why? Because it means politicians are out of touch, and have no idea how normal people live. But being an inexperienced politician with good perspective is no better, it's simply swapping the inadequacies around. Substituting perspective for experience in the most important jobs in the country isn't a good idea by any stretch.

The ideal politician (for me), is born into a normal family (i.e., not millionaires as parents). They go out, and work in the real world for five, maybe ten years. Work that crappy Costa job part-time, then move into the professional world for a bit. Develop a skill set and a knowledge base.

Once they've done that, they've got the perspective. And she has that bit checked, which is great! But the next bit is equally crucial. Usually, having gotten settled, they display an interest in politics. Get involved at the local club for a good five years, build support, get to know the area. Then run for selection as an MP. Settle into Westminster for a term, and learn how the halls of power work, how the civil service is set up, which Parliamentary pub does the best bacon butties, how to juggle their responsibilities as an MP with their personal lives, and so on. Making sure they're a good MP. She's yet to do this.

Then comes the final stage. You get appointed to a junior (shadow) ministry or two. Sit on some committees. Read widely about them. Learn the detailed ins and outs of a good two or three portfolios. Then that means that when the time comes to get promoted up the chain again to a senior position, you know your areas of expertise. If you make it as Minister for Trade (for example), you already know the most important industries and figures, what's important for them, where costs can be cut, and taxes raised. You have the contacts and the experience to slip into the job, so that when the Party Leader asks you what should go in the Manifesto or what the opposition is doing wrong, you have detailed, well worked out theories to hand.

Then, once you've had some time at the top, you can start thinking about being Party Leader/PM.

I mean, how can Corbyn expect for one minute to be able to deliver a dashing blow to Tory trade policy when his own senior minister doesn't even know what the country exports? I daresay one of the reasons his manifesto and briefings are so atrocious is because he has absolutely no experience to call on! So instead, he and May mimic each other, and they just sit there in Parliament lobbing passive aggressive insults at each other, and ignoring everything of substance whilst Rome burns. And the reason May can do that is because Corbyn doesn't know how to do anything else, and doesn't have the experienced MP's to draw knowledge from to make up for his inadequacies there.

I think Labour are going to have to accept at some point that going full hog and far left to try and only pander to the working class is never going to get them into power.
J
Solely trying to pander? No, it won't. But if they're not on board, Labour will never have sufficient votes, the Tories and the Lib Dems soak up too much of the centre ground. Plus, they're the entire purpose for the existence of the Labour Party! If they'd abandon them just to try and sniff power, they don't deserve it.

And the proof is in the pudding. They did just that, their core vote has vanished into the wind, and they're toppling like dominoes.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 22:53:57


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Ketara wrote:
Well. We all know Corbyn will feth this up, probably shed a good sixty seats to the Tories, and then get booted.

So the question has to be; who will replace him? My bets are on Chuka Umunna making a play for it, or Sadiq Khan. Angela Eagle will likely make another run. Apparently a Labour poll group has been roadtesting some newbie called Rebecca Long-Bailey as a potential leader, but I don't reckon she's got the chops to fend off the others.


I thought Angela Eagle was the Tory leadership candidate, who dropped her challenge to May? Or was that...Lead...som? Leadsome?

Bah. Red rosette, blue rosette, can't tell them apart anyways.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 22:59:29


Post by: jhe90


Leadsome...

She was caught out lieing about het experience I believe.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/05 23:07:40


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Well. We all know Corbyn will feth this up, probably shed a good sixty seats to the Tories, and then get booted.

So the question has to be; who will replace him? My bets are on Chuka Umunna making a play for it, or Sadiq Khan. Angela Eagle will likely make another run. Apparently a Labour poll group has been roadtesting some newbie called Rebecca Long-Bailey as a potential leader, but I don't reckon she's got the chops to fend off the others.


I thought Angela Eagle was the Tory leadership candidate, who dropped her challenge to May? Or was that...Lead...som? Leadsome?

Bah. Red rosette, blue rosette, can't tell them apart anyways.


No, Angela Eagle was the one who was held up as the sacrificial lamb in the attempt to oust Corbyn after the referendum. The one who, at her press conference to announce her leadership bid, basically pleaded for there to be the heavyweight political correspondents. But they'd all run off as May was announcing something at the same time so Eagle ended up standing there, calling out people by name to ask her questions when those people weren't in the room. It was absolutely pathetic.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 02:59:02


Post by: lindsay40k


I met Jeremy Corbyn about a year or so ago. He came to speak in Matlock. His anti-austerity message was well-received. Not so much the local Labour councillors trying to explain that actually the reason they'd made so many cuts was because actually the Tories made them do it and actually they really had no other choice but to carry on being the axemen for the government but we're actually very reluctant to do it.

The reluctance of councillors to actually oppose austerity - and their success in pressuring Corbyn to back away from declaring Labour to be in principled active resistance in deed as well as in words - is academic for Matlock, now, as the Lib Dems have just taken the town on a platform denouncing the cuts Labour have made.

So, yeah. I'm seeing a big problem in Labour, and it's not trickling down from the top. But the big thing that I've not seen anyone - except a few on the hard left - pick up on is the state Labour was in before Corbyn became leader.

I'm not talking about its electoral performance. I'm not even talking about the health of its internal structures. I'm talking about paying its bills.

The party had a debt of £25 million. It stretched back over a decade. There was frequent speculation that the Tories would have to introduce state funding for parties, because Labour and Westminster were so entangled that if the party went bankrupt then government wouldn't be able to function.

Within a year of becoming leader, Corbyn had attracted so many more members than managerial neoliberalism did, all of the party's debts were paid and there was a surplus in the warchest.

It's bizarre. We've got people sneering at anyone who gets a bit excited at feeling hope for the first time in a generation as 'Corbyn cultists', then in the next breath praying for Tony Blair to wave a magic wand and cast an electability spell. (As if winning a hatrick against Black Wednesday, Billy Hug and Actual Dracula, all whilst promising things like electoral reform and no rises in study costs, was a spectacular achievement.)

And these people are wailing that if there isn't a coup within Labour, that exploits the aforementioned internal structures to make sure that the only candidates are cherry-picked apparatchiks the majority of the membership would never nominate, the party will be in opposition for a generation.

Now. Even if we take their claim that it is the left-wing leadership - and not the appalling behaviour of the "moderate" MPs and bureaucrats, with their purges and backstabs and literal calls for people to vote Tory - that makes Labour "unelectable"... surely it's better to be in opposition to the Tories than to be begging them for a bailout? A party divided, or a party facing eviction from its offices because it can't balance its own books... I can't see the latter option doing better in the court of public opinion.

I just can't get my head around it. All my adult life, I've been told I should vote Labour to keep the Tories out. Now, those same people who wanted to blackmail me into being their ballot-fodder are trying to rig the party's democracy to kick me out, after helping pay off the huge debts they ran up!

Oh, and apparently I'm living in a bubble, in my Northern Council estate, whereas their Westminster offices give them perfect insight into what the majority of the public wants - but apparently don't want enough to give enough donations & subs to keep the party afloat.

What would I like to see? I'd like Corbyn to rise up the historic fulcrum that a hubristic gesture of the Blairites has placed him on - settle this civil war between the membership of the party, and its careerist rump that wants to retreat into their comfort zone of Tory-lite economics plus toothless equal rights laws (that seem to mean little in practice) and soft immigrant-baiting. I'd like him to lead a struggle for democratic reform in the party, and then once elections & membership can't be stitched up by the Far Centre, someone like perhaps Clive Lewis can pick up the torch.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 06:36:31


Post by: Ketara


 lindsay40k wrote:

.......It's bizarre. We've got people sneering at anyone who gets a bit excited at feeling hope for the first time in a generation as 'Corbyn cultists', then in the next breath praying for Tony Blair to wave a magic wand and cast an electability spell. (As if winning a hatrick against Black Wednesday, Billy Hug and Actual Dracula, all whilst promising things like electoral reform and no rises in study costs, was a spectacular achievement.)

I can't say I've met, read, or heard about a single actual person wishing for Blair to return in about seven years. And without trying to flatter myself, I consume a fair bit of political media. Under what rock are you finding these people passionately wanting Blair back?

.....What would I like to see? I'd like Corbyn to rise up the historic fulcrum that a hubristic gesture of the Blairites has placed him on.......

I approve of the word 'fulcrum'. It's a great word! Otherwise, I'm afraid I can't see much that jives with what I perceive as political reality in your perception about Corbyn. All I can say is that I wish I found him to be even half the man his supporters seem to perceive him as, it might actually give me some faith in politics.

Well, until he crashed and burned at the GE anyway.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 08:08:24


Post by: Orlanth


 lindsay40k wrote:


What would I like to see? I'd like Corbyn to rise up the historic fulcrum that a hubristic gesture of the Blairites has placed him on - settle this civil war between the membership of the party, and its careerist rump that wants to retreat into their comfort zone of Tory-lite economics plus toothless equal rights laws (that seem to mean little in practice) and soft immigrant-baiting. I'd like him to lead a struggle for democratic reform in the party, and then once elections & membership can't be stitched up by the Far Centre, someone like perhaps Clive Lewis can pick up the torch.


I would be happy to see Corbyn unite the Labour party behind him, because it really doesnt matter whether the party does or doesn't. He is still Jeremy Corbyn, only the hard left will vote for him, the population see a Michael Foot style loony left as unelectable. The only people voting for him are party members and those so poor they have nothing to lose, everyone else would prefer to have an economy and don't want the Falkland islanders disappeared just because they remind Corbyn of old memories of Margaret Thatcher.

I likely wont get my wish, when this election is over the party powerbase in Labour will find some way to remove him, and this time will not nominate a token hard left to stand alongside the Blairites justling for position. <shudder> Labour will be dangerous again.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 08:31:55


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Orlanth wrote:
 lindsay40k wrote:


What would I like to see? I'd like Corbyn to rise up the historic fulcrum that a hubristic gesture of the Blairites has placed him on - settle this civil war between the membership of the party, and its careerist rump that wants to retreat into their comfort zone of Tory-lite economics plus toothless equal rights laws (that seem to mean little in practice) and soft immigrant-baiting. I'd like him to lead a struggle for democratic reform in the party, and then once elections & membership can't be stitched up by the Far Centre, someone like perhaps Clive Lewis can pick up the torch.


I would be happy to see Corbyn unite the Labour party behind him, because it really doesnt matter whether the party does or doesn't. He is still Jeremy Corbyn, only the hard left will vote for him, the population see a Michael Foot style loony left as unelectable. The only people voting for him are party members and those so poor they have nothing to lose, everyone else would prefer to have an economy and don't want the Falkland islanders disappeared just because they remind Corbyn of old memories of Margaret Thatcher.

I likely wont get my wish, when this election is over the party powerbase in Labour will find some way to remove him, and this time will not nominate a token hard left to stand alongside the Blairites justling for position. <shudder> Labour will be dangerous again.


By dangerous you mean functionally indistinguishable from the Tories?


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 08:54:57


Post by: Whirlwind


 Orlanth wrote:
I likely wont get my wish, when this election is over the party powerbase in Labour will find some way to remove him, and this time will not nominate a token hard left to stand alongside the Blairites justling for position. <shudder> Labour will be dangerous again.


You mean that we might get a party that doesn't want to trash the NHS, education, social services etc and actually give those on the poorest incomes the ability to achieve something and improve themselves. I suppose if you are an 'elite' and can afford all the private services then yes that might be something to shudder about, after all they won't be able to sit on piles of working class people whilst they drink Pims and eat Strawberries; their position of power and money might actually get challenged!

On an aside the Guardian has done some basic analysis on the local election results and it doesn't actually appear as bad when you compare left central to far right politics. What really killed the left / central is the First Past the Post system. Lib Dems and Labour actually got a larger share of the vote overall. What favoured the Tories is UKIP collapsed and that Labour didn't have the support to offset newUKIP sucking up UKIPs vote. However overall between centre / left and far right politics the country is still just as divided as ever in that it is pretty much a 50:50 split. If this continues to the GE then it's not going to do anything for bringing the country together and it is going to be just as divided (and angry) as ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/05/the-guardian-view-on-the-2017-local-elections-a-clear-and-present-warning

On an aside this is the sort of thing we are going to get from Brexit. If you thought the Snoopers bill was bad they now want to be able to spy on all of the populace real time....I suppose this is Brexit and taking back control (of the populaces freedoms maybe?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39817300


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:08:35


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


There seems to be a lot of myths flying around Michael Foot and the 1983 election.

Labour got more seats and votes than Michael Howard and William Hague years later, and if it hadn't been for the euphoria sweeping the nation after the Falklands War, Labour might actually have won in 1983, as Thatcher was pretty unpopular.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:13:44


Post by: Compel


I continued my tradition of voting for the losing side in every election I've taken part in.

Expect weirdness to happen in the General Election.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:17:37


Post by: Kilkrazy


I also was going to comment on the voting patterns.

The FPTP system is capable of delivering a massive victory to a party that enjoys the support of under half the electorate. I think this is a weakness in the system.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:20:46


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I also was going to comment on the voting patterns.

The FPTP system is capable of delivering a massive victory to a party that enjoys the support of under half the electorate. I think this is a weakness in the system.


In Scotland, we use the STV system for the council elections, and the SNP won, and won well.

If it had been FPTP, the SNP vote would have to have been weighed.

It is possible for one party to dominate, regardless of voting system used.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:25:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


Proportional representation does not allow a party that gets 36% of the votes to get 55% of the seats.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:29:45


Post by: Ketara


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Proportional representation does not allow a party that gets 36% of the votes to get 55% of the seats.


Yeah, but it lets things like the nutters be kingmakers surprisingly often.

Every democratic system is broken is some way.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 10:38:31


Post by: Kilkrazy


To be frank, I think it's better to allow the nutters their day in the sun if the population supports it.

Much though I disagreed with UKIP, I thought their 13% of the vote in 2015 deserved more than 1 MP.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 11:47:41


Post by: Yodhrin


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There seems to be a lot of myths flying around Michael Foot and the 1983 election.

Labour got more seats and votes than Michael Howard and William Hague years later, and if it hadn't been for the euphoria sweeping the nation after the Falklands War, Labour might actually have won in 1983, as Thatcher was pretty unpopular.


See, you're making the fatal mistake of basing your interpretation of events on a factual account of those events, when what you should be doing is gargling the load of the Great British Free Press and thanking them for the opportunity to do so.

For example, in Great British Free Press Land, Corbyn-led Labour getting 28%(I think that was the Poll of Polls beforehand? Correct me if I'm wrong) is a disaster, a nightmare, a colossal catastroshambles that proves, once and for always, that GBFP Land thinks Labour, and Corbyn Labour especially, is an irredemable joke.

The Ruth Davidson Queen's Eleven No Surrender To A Second Referendum FTP Party limping just ahead of 23%(estimated, since for some mysterious reason the national 1st-pref figures for Scotland seem to have vanished into the ether as far as the BBC are concerned) is a stunning victory, an incalculable success, truly it makes her a modern Britannia vanquishing all before her and proving once & for all that Scotland is, at heart, a Tory heartland. Indeed, there's only one winner in Scotland and, surely, with a stunning 23%(estimated) of the vote, that winner is the the Ruth Davidson QENSSRFTP Party.

As a wee public service announcement for those living in Great British Free Press Land and might be getting their info from Auntie, this was the Scottish local election result, beearing in mind we use the STV system and that both Labour and the Tories ran on a rabid "No 2nd Referendum" platform despite local councils having knob-all to do with the constitution:



It's a sad state of affairs when the Telegraph has a more accurate portrayal of Scottish politics than the BBC.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 12:03:04


Post by: lindsay40k


 Ketara wrote:

I can't say I've met, read, or heard about a single actual person wishing for Blair to return in about seven years. And without trying to flatter myself, I consume a fair bit of political media. Under what rock are you finding these people passionately wanting Blair back?


The rock in question would be the managerial structures of Labour and the ideological think tanks. Whether or not one regards these 'neoliberalism good, socialism bad' automata as actual people is a matter of personal opinion


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 12:05:30


Post by: Ketara


 Yodhrin wrote:

It's a sad state of affairs when the Telegraph has a more accurate portrayal of Scottish politics than the BBC.


Errr.....I gave the figures in that chart earlier on...and I got them from the BBC?

To be honest, the reason Davidson's getting all the attention right now is twofold:-

a) Sturgeon and the SNP are last election's breath-taking unforeseen election victory story. Now they're the entrenched establishment, cemented in people's minds as the 'popular' vote. That means that they're expected to win the majority of the seats. It's only newsworthy if they don't. 'SNP retains roughly the same result as last time' isn't really much of a headline. It's kind of boring, really. Up there with 'Looks a bit cloudy today' and 'Butler has new Diana story'. The sort of drab filler people flick past. Nobody will read it, so they focus on something else.

b) The Tories are making some headway in Scotland again. Doesn't really matter whose seats they're gobbling up, the fact is, the Tories have made some headway in Scotland, where they've been utterly toxic as a name for a good twenty five years. That's a story in and of itself.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 12:14:39


Post by: lindsay40k


 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be frank, I think it's better to allow the nutters their day in the sun if the population supports it.

Much though I disagreed with UKIP, I thought their 13% of the vote in 2015 deserved more than 1 MP.


I agree, one does not fight authoritarianism by throwing its votes in the bin. The far right have a consistent track record of losing elected positions after the public see the appalling job their candidates perform when actually put into power. Better burn them out than constantly fuel them the oxygen of "this system is rigged against us".

Sadly, when Blair ran on a manifesto including a mandate to introduce a PR system that wouldn't produce such egregious imbalances between share fomvote and share of MPs, he looked at his egregiously imbalanced majority and decided to sink the promise and copy Maggie's homework. After all, it's not like in fifteen years or so those pesky Scots Nationalists are going to pull a wee bit ahead in FPTP races, utterly annihilating one of the core bulwarks of Labour's ability to compete in a nationwide game of musical chairs! And come on, as if the Lib Dems will collaborate in a Boundaries Review that takes the bizarre rounding errors and stitches them up into a Tory dynasty!


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 13:08:12


Post by: Yodhrin


 Ketara wrote:
 Yodhrin wrote:

It's a sad state of affairs when the Telegraph has a more accurate portrayal of Scottish politics than the BBC.


Errr.....I gave the figures in that chart earlier on...and I got them from the BBC?


Then you didn't get them from the TV news, where they've been insisting that the SNP have somehow lost seats based on their own completely made-up notional estimates of what the 2012 vote might have looked like when fed through the revised boundary changes, despite them getting more seats.

To be honest, the reason Davidson's getting all the attention right now is twofold:-

a) Sturgeon and the SNP are last election's breath-taking unforeseen election victory story. Now they're the entrenched establishment, cemented in people's minds as the 'popular' vote. That means that they're expected to win the majority of the seats. It's only newsworthy if they don't. 'SNP retains roughly the same result as last time' isn't really much of a headline. It's kind of boring, really. Up there with 'Looks a bit cloudy today' and 'Butler has new Diana story'. The sort of drab filler people flick past. Nobody will read it, so they focus on something else.

b) The Tories are making some headway in Scotland again. Doesn't really matter whose seats they're gobbling up, the fact is, the Tories have made some headway in Scotland, where they've been utterly toxic as a name for a good twenty five years. That's a story in and of itself.


Couple of things. First, there's a difference between "The Tories increased their vote" and "The Tories are the real winners of this election despite coming a distant, distant second", and the latter is the line being taken by much of the media.

Second, lets not get carried away here, the Tories took less than a quarter of the popular vote in the local elections where differential turnout favours their key demographics, and even taken at face value they're still less popular up here than they were under Thatcher, so don't let yourself be kidded on we're seeing some grand left-right axis realigment or that the Tories have been detoxified up here, we're not and they aren't. What we are seeing is the realignment of Unionism with Loyalism - both the Tories and Labour ran this election as a proxy anti-referendum campaign(most Tory & Labour leaflettes didn't even mention local issues at all, they were 100% about "no second referendum", "only Labour/Tory delete as applicable can beat the SNP here" etc) and the combined position of Unionist parties declined marginally while the SNP and the Greens increased marginally.

The story here is the radicalisation of the core Unionist vote(hence why multiple SNP offices have been receiving threatening packages full of nitrate fertilizer and "SNP OUT TORIES IN" notes), the idea the Tories are being detoxified is a farce.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 13:50:55


Post by: Ketara


 Yodhrin wrote:
[
Then you didn't get them from the TV news

Nope. Followed the results on their live tracker and articles.

I'm also not entirely sure why you're so hassled about the BBC reporting of the stats. I just read an article on the website where it very clearly states that boundary changes mean that there are more seats now than there were at the last elections, which means that they're calculating seat proportions as percentages. So whilst the SNP have a higher number of councillors than they had before, they have a lower percentage of the overall number than they had before. It's not really a particularly complicated or unfair way of perceiving things, and they do explain it.


Second, lets not get carried away here, the Tories took less than a quarter of the popular vote in the local elections where differential turnout favours their key demographics, and even taken at face value they're still less popular up here than they were under Thatcher, so don't let yourself be kidded on we're seeing some grand left-right axis realigment or that the Tories have been detoxified up here, we're not and they aren't. What we are seeing is the realignment of Unionism with Loyalism - both the Tories and Labour ran this election as a proxy anti-referendum campaign(most Tory & Labour leaflettes didn't even mention local issues at all, they were 100% about "no second referendum", "only Labour/Tory delete as applicable can beat the SNP here" etc) and the combined position of Unionist parties declined marginally while the SNP and the Greens increased marginally.

The story here is the radicalisation of the core Unionist vote(hence why multiple SNP offices have been receiving threatening packages full of nitrate fertilizer and "SNP OUT TORIES IN" notes), the idea the Tories are being detoxified is a farce.

Tbh, it makes logical sense that as Thatcher drifts further away from public memory, less people will be so worked up about the Tories, that;s how cultural memory works. I suspect the way the SNP has pushed everything into a 'A vote for us is a definite vote/endorsement for our next independence referendum' ultimatum will probably push even more people towards the Tories next election, especially with the Labour vote imploded. Frankly, it would be stranger if it didn't.

Out of curiosity, I just went through the data for the last seven or so GE results in Scotland, and it made for some interesting reading. Frankly, practically all of the SNP's growth has been at Labour's expense, the Tories have been building up slowly since they dipped to their lowest point in 2001 (360,000 votes). Since then, the total number of Tory votes has crept up by almost another hundred thousand. It hasn't resulted in much in the way of extra seats in Scotland yet, but that could yet change over the next two to three elections with the above factors mentioned. They were literally 300 votes behind the SNP candidate in Berwickshire in 2015, for example.

So actually, I'm not really entirely certain your kneejerk reaction that the Tories are as loathed as they've ever been is quite supported by the data if you look at it as a trend. They took a hammering after Thatcher, followed by another hammering after Blair first appeared (as they did all over Britain with John Major on the way out). As the SNP has swallowed Labour over the last fifteen odd years though, the Tories have been fairly steadily (if slowly) increasing their voter base in Scotland. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see them take another seat or two next month or another forty thousand votes.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 15:56:27


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


The irony here is that the Tories will use FPTP to hammer Labour in England and Wales, and yet, in Scotland, the SNP will use FPTP to hammer the Tories, so a few thousand extra Tory votes will have minimal impact.

I predict that on June 9th, the electoral map will be mostly blue for England and Wales, and almost all yellow for Scotland. Quite the contrast.

Expect the SNP to get at least 50 seats again, and yet, some people will paint that as a defeat. It's a strange world we live in...

And for the record, the Tory local election vote share in Scotland is less now than it was 5 years ago...

And yet, that's a comeback...


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 15:59:10


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And for the record, the Tory local election vote share in Scotland is less now than it was 5 years ago...

And yet, that's a comeback...


If its better than it was in the last election, then it is by definition a "comeback".

How substantial that comeback is, is debatable.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 16:05:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And for the record, the Tory local election vote share in Scotland is less now than it was 5 years ago...

And yet, that's a comeback...


If its better than it was in the last election, then it is by definition a "comeback".

How substantial that comeback is, is debatable.


The Tories are making gains in England and Wales partly because the opposition is so feeble and they're able to run rings around them.

It's a different story up here, because fire is met with fire.

The SNP are a united party, with a popular leader, who know what they stand for and where they want to go. A complete contrast to the shambles that is Labour, a party in which Corbyn doesn't even know who is on his side or his is briefing against him.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 18:09:29


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


Right, that's all well and good but that doesn't explain how the Tories gaining a considerable number of seats in Scotland more than the previous election is not a comeback.

It might well be a temporary comeback, their gains might evaporate in the next round of local elections, or it might not be reflected in the general election.

But its still an improvement and therefore can be described as a comeback, or the start of a comeback.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 19:45:17


Post by: Wulfmar


Well the general election was a disappointment from my perspective. It appears that the jingoistic British press and ministerial soundbites are swaying the population, compounded by the lack of an organised opposition. In contrast, the European press seems rather confused by how blinkered the (Dis)-United Kingdom is.

Not that it's going to be my problem much longer. I have dual nationality, my sector of scientific research is already in the process of migrating abroad and the money along with it.



Just for the fun of hyperbole, see where the following words fit in this GCSE History revision page: David Cameron, Austerity, Theresa May, Article 50, Conservative Party, Recession, £8.8M debt to EU, General Election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/hitlerpowerrev1.shtml


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 21:43:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right, that's all well and good but that doesn't explain how the Tories gaining a considerable number of seats in Scotland more than the previous election is not a comeback.

It might well be a temporary comeback, their gains might evaporate in the next round of local elections, or it might not be reflected in the general election.

But its still an improvement and therefore can be described as a comeback, or the start of a comeback.


It's a fair point, but I will say that when you're starting from rock bottom, any gain is going to look good.

The proof will reach us on June 9th, and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to put up my hand and admit it, but I'm confident enough to predict we'll win at least 50 seats up here.

The money situation is very good for funding a GE campaign, morale is high amongst the activists I know, the party is united, and like I said, they know who they are, what they want, and where they're going. I'm very optimistic about this GE.

Whatever your views of the SNP, and I respect the fact that some people don't like them or their policies, any democracy needs strong opposition to the government of the day. We all know that Labour are finished, that the Lib Dems will gain, but not enough, and that ultimately, June 8th will be a coronation for May.

But in one part of the UK, there is a very strong opposition to the Tories, and that is some measure of balance to preserve our democracy.

We are the resistance.


UK Politics @ 2017/05/06 21:49:33


Post by: jhe90


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Right, that's all well and good but that doesn't explain how the Tories gaining a considerable number of seats in Scotland more than the previous election is not a comeback.

It might well be a temporary comeback, their gains might evaporate in the next round of local elections, or it might not be reflected in the general election.

But its still an improvement and therefore can be described as a comeback, or the start of a comeback.


It's a fair point, but I will say that when you're starting from rock bottom, any gain is going to look good.

The proof will reach us on June 9th, and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to put up my hand and admit it, but I'm confident enough to predict we'll win at least 50 seats up here.

The money situation is very good for funding a GE campaign, morale is high amongst the activists I know, the party is united, and like I said, they know who they are, what they want, and where they're going. I'm very optimistic about this GE.

Whatever your views of the SNP, and I respect the fact that some people don't like them or their policies, any democracy needs strong opposition to the government of the day. We all know that Labour are finished, that the Lib Dems will gain, but not enough, and that ultimately, June 8th will be a coronation for May.

But in one part of the UK, there is a very strong opposition to the Tories, and that is some measure of balance to preserve our democracy.

We are the resistance.


The SNP have not set a foot constituancy wise past Hadrians wall or the border.
There whole being might be honestly solid and has a fixed aim but to gain ernough seats to be bigger than labour...

They need more seats... Those seats are not in Scotland.
But there goal is well incomparable with the a above.

So... Do you oppose tories on English soil . Can they even translate south of border?



UK Politics @ 2017/05/07 07:27:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


The turnout at this election was very low. This makes the results more volatile, and traditionally discriminates against Labour. Therefore we can probably expect a better performance from Labour at the GE.

The Lib-Dem performance was patchy. They increased their overall share of the vote, but their problem in this election was that much of their traditional heartland -- the south-west -- is strongly Leave while the Lib-Dem campaign is based on Remain. The Lib-Dems should improve their position when London comes into play.

UKIP of course obviously collapsed, for the highly expectable reason that they are a one-issue party and their issue has been decided. They don't have a message and rallying cry any more.

The Conservatives benefited more from the collapse of UKIP than anyone. They also benefit from the FPTP system as the most popular party though still a clear minority of support.

The SNP's problem is that they are foremost a party of independence. This means they cannot campaign outside Scotland without legitimising the English voice in that issue. The second difficulty is that independence actually is supported by less than half the electorate of Scotland. However, by being left-wing the SNP hoovered up a lot of previously Labour votes. They benefit by being pro-Remain in a strongly pro-Remain region. But if you are a right-leaning, pro-Union, Brexiteer, who you gonna vote for? The Scottish situation is also complicated by regression to the mean.



UK Politics @ 2017/05/07 10:42:38


Post by: Whirlwind


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I also was going to comment on the voting patterns.

The FPTP system is capable of delivering a massive victory to a party that enjoys the support of under half the electorate. I think this is a weakness in the system.


I agree. FPTP only works where you have two party system really because then it does generally become more representative. The issue is that we now have multiple parties and that means that one or the other side of the major party votes gets 'eaten into' giving the other side an easy win without there really being a shift in the political leanings either way. Hence you have the 'silliness' of tactical voting because to vote for who you really believe in just takes votes from the group that has a chance of removing the party you definitely don't want. It also disengages both the electorate and the politicians from certain areas where there is a massive weighting one way or another because gaining those extra votes doesn't actually mean anything at all. PR gets round this issue because every vote does count.

The fear that PR could put someone in charge that is truly a nutcase doesn't really work for this Country because we have representatives. It can be more of an issue where you have one power hungry president (for example what is happening in Turkey), but no system can prevent this when you have one person ultimately in charge. In some ways FPTP system is more dangerous to the UK because a minority (relatively) can put in charge such a sweeping majority that there is no method to challenge policies and legislation. One of the greatest fears we should have is that Tories do get such a significant majority that they can pass through aggressive boundary changes (noting it was quietly put to one side because some Tory MPs were unhappy it had too much on an impact on the Tories). Even the previous proposals initial estimates/indications showed that the Tories would need approx (IIRC) 2.5% less votes to maintain their MP ratio. If a more aggressive change was made then we may find that it is nigh impossible to remove them from power unless the populace significantly changes its voting attitude. We then have the unenviable situation where a relative minority dictate to the majority and in some ways this is no better than more dictatorial countries where this happens (its just the method is far more subtle).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:


The story here is the radicalisation of the core Unionist vote(hence why multiple SNP offices have been receiving threatening packages full of nitrate fertilizer and "SNP OUT TORIES IN" notes), the idea the Tories are being detoxified is a farce.


Hmmm didn't know that was going on. That's worrying that's a trend that we saw in NI and we know where that ended up. I doubt we want to see another UK nationalist/independence nationalist civil war break out.