Brexit and General UK politics thread

[Zaune]

How, how in God's name is that possible? Do the British people have a collective impulse toward self-destruction? Or are all your other parties just that shit?

Yes.

[Alkaloid]

The thing is though, all she could gain is a few more seats in parliament and pushing the next election to 2022; whilst what she could lose is her majority in Parliament or worse her role as Prime Minister. The latter would also probably unify Labour somewhat, making it more difficult for her successor to win in 2022. So you'd have to weight the chance of success against the risk if it goes wrong.

She stands to gain a narrative though. The Torys have been dancing to UKIPs very stupid tune for a while now, even though UKIP have effectively stopped playing. If she plays this right she can at least give the appearance she isn't charging after a bunch of horses that have already bolted and try to get some traction. Down side is if it goes the wrong way for her it could end up increasing Corbyns support within the Labour party room, but I'm not well versed enough in UK politics to know how likely that is.

[Darth Tanner]

Down side is if it goes the wrong way for her it could end up increasing Corbyns support within the Labour party room, but I'm not well versed enough in UK politics to know how likely that is.

She would have to make a good and proper mess of it for that to happen. Corbyn will be fighting to not take massive losses across the entire country. Labour is polling at rock bottom, I'd expect them to lose 50-60 seats on current trends.

It might even be worse if Corbyn lets lose with his tax and spend plans over the next few months... he doesnt put a lot of thought into his policy statements and has gotten away with it so far by being able to only have vague ideas then backtracking from them, having to have a firm manifesto will nail him to the standard, pants and all.

[His Divine Shadow]

IMO he needs to be talking more about that and the other good stuff he's been saying, and louder.

[Minischoles]

Oh fuck.

This will probably increase her majority.

Speaking as someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the nuances of British politics, and as a citizen of a country that just saw fit to give Donald fucking Trump control over a nuclear arsenal...

How, how in God's name is that possible? Do the British people have a collective impulse toward self-destruction? Or are all your other parties just that shit?

Somehow (and I am genuinely confused by this) the following thinking has become mainstream

'well Labour has great policies that will directly benefit me, but Corbyn is shit - guess i'll vote for the party that literally thinks i'm scum'

Anyone who isn't in the upper middle class and above voting for Tory is completely mystifying to me, as every policy they have seems designed to punish those less well off - if you're a job seeker or disabled you're not even people in their eyes (look at how the Tories reacted to starving people literally fighting at a food bank - they laughed as if it was some colossal joke).

[The Romulan Republic]

Given Brexit, I can't help but think a lot of that is xenophobia.

"Well, the Tories may spit on us, and the country may literally be falling apart, but at least they're keeping out those dirty foreigners."

[madd0ct0r]

A lot of it is people think they ARE upper middle class or above. They're voting for the polcies their future rich selves would like.

[Tribble]

IMO we should be careful not to allow ourselves to turn into an echo-chamber here, and try to avoid being so damn dismissive and ignorant about people we disagree with as that 's exactly the sort of thing which leads to situations like Trump and Brexit. And also leads to underestimating the potential of those kinds of events from happening.

It's not so simple as "Every single person who wants to leave the EU = racist, homophobic, capitalist pig, retard, anti-environment, anti-human rights, evilz etc". I really hope political parties get the message that labelling a big chunk of the electorate like that is not going to work if their goal is to remain in the EU or at least maintain strong ties like the EEA.

[Sea Skimmer]

People still want sovereign countries, and I'd say about nobody here from the EU, or anywhere else, has ever done a thing to convince me otherwise. Far from it in fact. And push comes to shove, the EU cannot replace the sovereign nation state unless people are willing to fight and die for it in large numbers, and they just aren't, and the refusal of the EU to employ its cartoon like reaction fail force even as a headquarters function for the frigging United Nations is just icing on the cake as to that reality in the past.

This is part of why the EU expansion has been so driven by non democratic means and true believer types full of reallly unrealistic delusions on some subjects, its broad base appeal is too shifty and topical. The fact that they use totalitarian tactics of labeling everyone against it as a xenophobic or insane or whatever the hell is the word of the day all goes along with it, the EU is about the perfect bureaucracy, not free people. That the free people might benefit from the perfect bureaucracy is true and possible, but not inevitable, and frankly a bit unlikely as long as the MEPs continue to be a giant bag of people who could just never get elected in a national MP kind of setting. The EU is probably lucky the Constitution Treaty failed when it did, they handled the aftermath badly, but had it passed I suspect it would have broken up the whole EU within a few years.

And I say this still believing that the UK should stay, but frankly, while I understand that the EU cannot and should not give the UK a better deal then it has now it if leaves, that doesn't mean it has to be a bad deal either, and every time the EU acts like a dick while continuing to not solve its own very real problems it just is that one little more vindication of the leave camp. Because the UK always could rejoin a generation from now, but waiting even one second longer to leave is a terrible idea, and the whole reason this is such a problem is because the decision was intentionally avoided, while being promised.

Also as a basic fact, even before the 2008 recession the EU by its own numbers was only claiming that it boosted GDP by 3% total since Maastricht. That's not a small amount of money, but its not a great impossible triumph of economics either, and many assumptions behind it are open to question. But if you look at the post 2008 years, well, the numbers are rather less amazing anyway, and much less evenly distributed. If that can't reverse in at least the Eurozone then the whole thing is bunk. And the fact just is, anything on paper can be reversed by paper, and many lesser organizations could handle most of what the EU does that generates value. Inertia should never be a reason to do anything on its own.

[The Romulan Republic]

IMO we should be careful not to allow ourselves to turn into an echo-chamber here, and try to avoid being so damn dismissive and ignorant about people we disagree with as that 's exactly the sort of thing which leads to situations like Trump and Brexit. And also leads to underestimating the potential of those kinds of events from happening.

It's not so simple as "Every single person who wants to leave the EU = racist, homophobic, capitalist pig, retard, anti-environment, anti-human rights, evilz etc". I really hope political parties get the message that labelling a big chunk of the electorate like that is not going to work if their goal is to remain in the EU or at least maintain strong ties like the EEA.

Is that directed at me?

Because that's certainly not my position, but, I don't think you can honestly deny that xenophobia is a major motivating factor in people voting for Right wing positions and politicians against their own economic and social self-interest.

[Gandalf]

IMO we should be careful not to allow ourselves to turn into an echo-chamber here, and try to avoid being so damn dismissive and ignorant about people we disagree with as that 's exactly the sort of thing which leads to situations like Trump and Brexit. And also leads to underestimating the potential of those kinds of events from happening.

It's not so simple as "Every single person who wants to leave the EU = racist, homophobic, capitalist pig, retard, anti-environment, anti-human rights, evilz etc". I really hope political parties get the message that labelling a big chunk of the electorate like that is not going to work if their goal is to remain in the EU or at least maintain strong ties like the EEA.

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, their is that.

Appeal to Tradition carries a lot of weight. People will often give an idea more respect and trust for no better reason than because its old.

Edit: Although, "the way we've always done things" and "rampant xenophobia and misogyny" have a lot of overlap.

[Tribble]

Is that directed at me?

Because that's certainly not my position, but, I don't think you can honestly deny that xenophobia is a major motivating factor in people voting for Right wing positions and politicians against their own economic and social self-interest.

Not directed specifically at you, but Remainers in general (and less people forget I would be one myself were I living in the UK).

I've never denied that xenophobia is a major motivating factor, but I think its naïve and foolish to assume that (and stupidity as many Remainers love to claim) are the sole major motivating factors. The ladder belief particularly irks me, and that kind of smug self-righteous arrogance is the exact kind of thing which promotes things like Brexit. "You're an idiot and you don't count" is not the way to go about winning referendums and elections. In fact I would go so far as to say that's likely one of the main causes as to why Brexit happened - UK voters were never really given the opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to join the EU in the first place and there was bound to be a big backlash down the road.*

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

Before I comment, may you please elaborate a bit more? I've run into quite a few Remainers who think that since "old people" are closer to death, they do not deserve being allowed to vote. Is that your position, or are you talking about something like conservative values in general?

Well, their is that.

Appeal to Tradition carries a lot of weight. People will often give an idea more respect and trust for no better reason than because its old.

Edit: Although, "the way we've always done things" and "rampant xenophobia and misogyny" have a lot of overlap.

Things like "Rule of Law" are traditions too, should we throw them out the window merely because they are old? Again, one has to be very careful in trying to avoid lumping things into "right" and "wrong" categories when its clear its not as simple as that.

* I go into detail on my opinions over the causes of the Brexit referendum and its result on the main Brexit thread, if you wish I can repeat it here though I feel its somewhat off topic.

[Tribble]

With regards to this election at this point IMO the Remain group would be better off trying to bring about "Soft-Brexit" than staying in the EU. I think that would have has better odds of success as they may be able to pull quite a few Leave voters over to that position. A half of loaf of bread is better than none.

[Gandalf]

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

Before I comment, may you please elaborate a bit more? I've run into quite a few Remainers who think that since "old people" are closer to death, they do not deserve being allowed to vote. Is that your position, or are you talking about something like conservative values in general?

The second one. The idea is that history is an inherently safe mental space, because we know how it turns out. People vote for the policies of fifty years ago because people know and understand what was in the past, as opposed to the uncertainties of new ideas. For Brexit, one could see it as the question of an independent Britain, which worked in the past, versus the unprecedented path of the EU. In American politics, Clinton offered a future where not everyone could see their place. Trump offered the past. He said coal jobs would come back, and everyone could go back to their jobs from which they built their identities.

[Tribble]

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

Before I comment, may you please elaborate a bit more? I've run into quite a few Remainers who think that since "old people" are closer to death, they do not deserve being allowed to vote. Is that your position, or are you talking about something like conservative values in general?

The second one. The idea is that history is an inherently safe mental space, because we know how it turns out. People vote for the policies of fifty years ago because people know and understand what was in the past, as opposed to the uncertainties of new ideas. For Brexit, one could see it as the question of an independent Britain, which worked in the past, versus the unprecedented path of the EU. In American politics, Clinton offered a future where not everyone could see their place. Trump offered the past. He said coal jobs would come back, and everyone could go back to their jobs from which they built their identities.

But it could be looked at the other way as well, many people viewed the EU as the "status quo" and Brexit as the unprecedented path. The UK's uncertain future post-Brexit was one of the Remainer's main points.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is that directed at me?

Because that's certainly not my position, but, I don't think you can honestly deny that xenophobia is a major motivating factor in people voting for Right wing positions and politicians against their own economic and social self-interest.

Not directed specifically at you, but Remainers in general (and less people forget I would be one myself were I living in the UK).

I've never denied that xenophobia is a major motivating factor, but I think its naïve and foolish to assume that (and stupidity as many Remainers love to claim) are the sole major motivating factors. The ladder belief particularly irks me, and that kind of smug self-righteous arrogance is the exact kind of thing which promotes things like Brexit. "You're an idiot and you don't count" is not the way to go about winning referendums and elections. In fact I would go so far as to say that's likely one of the main causes as to why Brexit happened - UK voters were never really given the opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to join the EU in the first place and there was bound to be a big backlash down the road.*

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

Before I comment, may you please elaborate a bit more? I've run into quite a few Remainers who think that since "old people" are closer to death, they do not deserve being allowed to vote. Is that your position, or are you talking about something like conservative values in general?

Well, their is that.

Appeal to Tradition carries a lot of weight. People will often give an idea more respect and trust for no better reason than because its old.

Edit: Although, "the way we've always done things" and "rampant xenophobia and misogyny" have a lot of overlap.

Things like "Rule of Law" are traditions too, should we throw them out the window merely because they are old? Again, one has to be very careful in trying to avoid lumping things into "right" and "wrong" categories when its clear its not as simple as that.

* I go into detail on my opinions over the causes of the Brexit referendum and its result on the main Brexit thread, if you wish I can repeat it here though I feel its somewhat off topic.

No, of course we shouldn't dismiss traditions simply because they are old. We should evaluate the merits of all positions based on merit, based in evidence.

That said, as a rule, the one constant of the universe is change.

[Tribble]

No, of course we shouldn't dismiss traditions simply because they are old. We should evaluate the merits of all positions based on merit, based in evidence.

That said, as a rule, the one constant of the universe is change.

Well Brexit certainly is a change, so we'll see what happens there

[Gandalf]

But it could be looked at the other way as well, many people viewed the EU as the "status quo" and Brexit as the unprecedented path. The UK's uncertain future post-Brexit was one of the Remainer's main points.

Of course. There's no such thing as a universal interpretation of anything.

[bilateralrope]

Oh fuck.

This will probably increase her majority.

Speaking as someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the nuances of British politics, and as a citizen of a country that just saw fit to give Donald fucking Trump control over a nuclear arsenal...

How, how in God's name is that possible? Do the British people have a collective impulse toward self-destruction? Or are all your other parties just that shit?

The number of seats each party got in the last election had major differences between the number of people voting for each party and the number of seats each party got. First Past the Post in action.

'well Labour has great policies that will directly benefit me, but Corbyn is shit - guess i'll vote for the party that literally thinks i'm scum'

How many people were voting along the lines of "this party sucks, but their candidate in my electorate is all right. So I'll vote for him, not his party" ?

Which the party then sees as a vote for the party.

[Crazedwraith]

Jeremy Corbyn 'likely to stay on' even if Labour suffers crushing election defeat

Jeremy Corbyn is expected to stay on as Labour leader even if he leads his party to a crushing election defeat on June 8, The Independent can reveal.

Party figures close to the Labour leader have said there is a good chance Mr Corbyn will either refuse to resign or run again to retain power.

The key goal of Mr Corbyn’s group is that regardless of the election result, he cling to power at least until after party conference when his allies can attempt to change the system of electing the leader in a bid to secure a leftwing successor.

The news was met with anger, with one MP warning that a devastating loss at the hands of Theresa May’s Tories will make Mr Corbyn’s position untenable, while another branded the situation “fucking ridiculous”.

Current polls suggest Labour is on course to lose up to 70 seats, reducing the number of its MPs by almost a third. A recent ComRes poll for The Independent gave the Prime Minister a 21-point lead over her Labour rival.

While Party leaders who fail at the ballot box traditionally step aside, as Ed Miliband did in 2015 or David Cameron following defeat in the EU referendum, Labour sources who know Mr Corbyn well and those close to Labour leadership rivals say he is likely to stay on as leader as he bids to cement the powerbase of the hard left.

One individual close to the Labour leader: “He has only been leader for two years, he hasn’t had a whole term and there was the disruptive influence of the second leadership contest. I can see the argument for why he wouldn’t step down.

“They want to get the rule change through – you have to look at it in that context. He might hang on until they get that through. There is a feeling that two years is not long enough and it would be legitimate if he wanted to stay on.”

At the party’s annual conference in September Mr Corbyn’s allies are expected to bring forward key proposals to reduce the number of MP nominations needed for a candidate seeking to be elected as party leader.

Current rules require each candidate to secure the backing of 15 per cent of the MPs in the parliamentary party, which would make it difficult for a left-wing successor such as current Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell or Rebecca Long-Bailey to receive enough nominations.

But the proposals would lower the threshold, meaning each candidate would need the backing off just five per cent. The move is seen as vital in enabling one of Mr Corbyn’s left-wing allies to make the ballot in a future leadership election.

Mr Corbyn could then step aside safe in the knowledge that he could nominate a successor who was likely to win the support of the party’s current left-wing membership.

Another former Labour staffer who worked closely with Mr Corbyn, said: “There is a good chance he will either refuse to resign or run again. If he were to run again, I see no reason why he could not win again.

“Those who have his ear do not see a general election loss as anything more than another obstacle on the long road to control over the Labour Party."

The rule change to be debated at party conference is named after Mr McDonnell, who twice failed in his bid for leader of the party due to a failure to secure enough nominations from his fellow MPs.

Under party rules, a matter debated at party conference cannot be discussed for another three years, meaning this year’s gathering is seen as the big opportunity for Mr Corbyn’s allies to change the game in their favour.

Among those waiting for Mr Corbyn’s tenure to end, some sort of move to retain power is expected, certainly a refusal to step aside in the immediate aftermath of a loss on June 8 would be no surprise.

One well-placed party insider said: “Corbyn’s proven he can tough it out, he’ll take the hit and wait for the McDonnell amendment. He’s got every reason to hang on until then.

“He’ll stay until after [the party conference in] Brighton, without doubt. They’ve got this big shot in the autumn to try to change the rules so that they can have a proper hard left candidate. They’re not going to walk away from that.

“He will not stand down, he will see it through to conference and they will try to get the McDonnell amendment through.”

But the idea that Corbyn could remain in power following a defeat prompted anger from some senior figures. One former Labour minister said: “If we go backwards, Corbyn’s position will be completely untenable and he will have to go – there’s no question of that.

“Labour MPs will unite and put our case to the public in our own constituencies, but the leader will have to take responsibility for the national result.”

Another individual connected to a senior Labour figure said: “We had heard that something like this was being planned. It’s fucking ridiculous.”

One MP told The Independent: "They have to acknowledge that if the result is as bad as the polling and the Copeland by-election result suggest, then they are responsible. I've heard of project fear. This sounds like project catastro-fuck."

Meanwhile London Labour MP Neil Coyle simply said: "Going into this election Jeremy Corbyn is our leader. All leaders must take responsibility for what they achieve."

Labour MPs won't have to face members' re-selection ballots to stand

Polling suggests Mr Corbyn may well under pressure from party members to resign if he leads Labour to election defeat. A YouGov poll carried out last month found 68 per cent believe he should step down after a loss, while only 20 per cent think he should continue.

Potential candidate to replace him from other wings in the party could include current Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer, former paratrooper Dan Jarvis, Wigan MP Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper, who was defeated by Mr Corbyn in the 2015 contest.

Clive Lewis, a left-winger who was previously close to Mr Corbyn, could also run if he manages to retain his Norwich seat in the face of a strong Liberal Democrat and Conservative challenge.

Mr Corbyn refused to say what he will do if Labour loses the election, when contacted by The Independent.

He said: “We are campaigning to win this election, that’s the only question now.

“I want to lead a government that will transform this country – give real hope to everybody and above all bring about a principle of justice for everybody and economic opportunities for everybody.”

I've got a deal of sympathy for Corbyn just for the sheer amount of knives his own MPs seem to want to stick in his back. But this sounds like a big mistake to try and hold on to power above all else.

eta: Also planning to fail much?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Also, this part:

“Those who have his ear do not see a general election loss as anything more than another obstacle on the long road to control over the Labour Party."

That makes it sound as though his goal is running the Labour party and not actually winning an election - which does kinda make sense as it lets you sit outside and criticise without having to actually do a better job.

[jwl]

The thing is though, all she could gain is a few more seats in parliament and pushing the next election to 2022; whilst what she could lose is her majority in Parliament or worse her role as Prime Minister. The latter would also probably unify Labour somewhat, making it more difficult for her successor to win in 2022. So you'd have to weight the chance of success against the risk if it goes wrong.

She stands to gain a narrative though. The Torys have been dancing to UKIPs very stupid tune for a while now, even though UKIP have effectively stopped playing. If she plays this right she can at least give the appearance she isn't charging after a bunch of horses that have already bolted and try to get some traction. Down side is if it goes the wrong way for her it could end up increasing Corbyns support within the Labour party room, but I'm not well versed enough in UK politics to know how likely that is.

Is risking losing a majority worth a "narrative"? I don't know why she's called the election, I wouldn't dismiss the reasons she stated out of hand (easier to negotiate on brexit with an enlarged majority and won't be in election mode when negotiations reach their endpoint), but in terms of what she actually gains from the election, an increased majority and a 2-year election delay dwarfs anything about "narrative". Everyone will have forgotten about that by 2022.

This is part of why the EU expansion has been so driven by non democratic means and true believer types full of reallly unrealistic delusions on some subjects, its broad base appeal is too shifty and topical. The fact that they use totalitarian tactics of labeling everyone against it as a xenophobic or insane or whatever the hell is the word of the day all goes along with it, the EU is about the perfect bureaucracy, not free people. That the free people might benefit from the perfect bureaucracy is true and possible, but not inevitable, and frankly a bit unlikely as long as the MEPs continue to be a giant bag of people who could just never get elected in a national MP kind of setting. The EU is probably lucky the Constitution Treaty failed when it did, they handled the aftermath badly, but had it passed I suspect it would have broken up the whole EU within a few years.

When has the EU itself done this? I've seen plenty of labelling by people supportive of the EU, but I've never seen a statement from the EU itself saying "everyone who doesn't like us is either xenophobic or insane".

I like to frame it as "The Tories/Republicans/LNP/other conservatives are the party of yesterday." Since today's voters survived yesterday, they those politicians must have done something right. The rationale is... odd, but it sort of makes sense.

Of course the other party of yesterday is the Whigs/Liberals/Lib Dems and they aren't doing very well right now.

Oh fuck.

This will probably increase her majority.

Speaking as someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the nuances of British politics, and as a citizen of a country that just saw fit to give Donald fucking Trump control over a nuclear arsenal...

How, how in God's name is that possible? Do the British people have a collective impulse toward self-destruction? Or are all your other parties just that shit?

The number of seats each party got in the last election had major differences between the number of people voting for each party and the number of seats each party got. First Past the Post in action.

No it isn't. The Conservatives were still first by vote count and Labour is (or was, before boundary review) favoured by FPTP because Labour supporters tend to move out from their inner city safe seats to suburban contested seats after the boundaries have been drawn.

[streetad]

Also, this part:

“Those who have his ear do not see a general election loss as anything more than another obstacle on the long road to control over the Labour Party."

That makes it sound as though his goal is running the Labour party and not actually winning an election - which does kinda make sense as it lets you sit outside and criticise without having to actually do a better job.

This gets to the heart of why Corbyn is so unpopular amongst the Parliamentary Labour Party - he (and his inner circle like John Mcdonnell) are still fighting an internal civil war for control of the Labour Party that started way back in the 1970s and that most people had thought was long over. For some of them it IS more important than being able to form a credible government, certainly in the short term.

[Zaune]

On the other hand, the Labour Party in its current form would be no less dysfunctional without Corbyn; in fact arguably more so. The Parliamentary party want another 'moderate' like Blair who'll pander to the tabloids and the vested interests and 'compromise' and 'modernise' until Labour policy is nothing more than a slightly watered-down version of Cameron's Tories. The actual party membership* are rather less enthusiastic about this idea, which is why they voted Corbyn into his post in the first place and have been steadfastly resisting every attempt to oust him. That disconnect is something they're going to have to deal with at some point, one way or the other.

* And yes, I'm aware that an awful lot of people joined specifically to help him get and keep the job, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that myself. But most parties would consider a sudden surge in membership applications, particularly from the 18-25 demographics they've been struggling to attract for some time, to be a good thing!