UK General Election 2017

[Furunculus]

Well they do that. We had it two times. The referendum for a EU-constitution was sabotaged, a major no was neglected after a minorchange. Same with the rediculous associaton-treayty with Ukrainian criminals, they just laid on an extra empty paper and it was not the same thing we voted against anymore.

it may well be how the eu acts, but that is irrelevant.

this is about my expectations of british democracy.
if we choose chaos we deserve to burn. adversity always returns, thrive or die.

[Furunculus]

That largely confirms what I've said, in more detail, and perhaps with more emphasis. The DUP may back lesser political ties with the EU, but they're big on the economic ties. Which means no hard Brexit, and an end to the grandstanding nonsense May was indulging in.

what is this hard brexit of which you speak?

to me it means acrimony and wto terms, not whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

no one [seeks] a hard brexit.

[Pannonian]

what is this hard brexit of which you speak?

to me it means acrimony and wto terms, not whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

no one [seeks] a hard brexit.

"No deal is better than a bad deal."

"Red, white and blue Brexit."

"Brexit means Brexit."

"A stitch in time saves nine."

[Fragony]

it may well be how the eu acts, but that is irrelevant.

this is about my expectations of british democracy.
if we choose chaos we deserve to burn. adversity always returns, thrive or die.

I'd go for burning. It even looks nice, bring sauages if it burns really well. And beer

[Furunculus]

"No deal is better than a bad deal."

"Red, white and blue Brexit."

"Brexit means Brexit."

"A stitch in time saves nine."

Your confusing means with ends.

[Furunculus]

I'd go for burning. It even looks nice, bring sauages if it burns really well. And beer

I dont expect things to be safe, it only allows people to avoid problems. Face them.

[Pannonian]

Your confusing means with ends.

So what is the end point now that May has sought a clearer mandate?

[Fragony]

I dont expect things to be safe, it only allows people to avoid problems. Face them.

I understood you just fine, I tend to jest when I don't have anything meaningful to say, it's somwhere but not at hand

[Furunculus]

So what is the end point now that May has sought a clearer mandate?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf

[Pannonian]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604079/Prime_Ministers_letter_to_European_Council_President_Donald_Tusk.pdf

That happened before the new and clearer mandate, didn't it? If so, what is this period following this renewed mandate? Post-end point? Does the new mandate change anything? If not, what was the point of seeking it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With Sinn Fein not voting in Westminster, that leaves 643 seats, or 322 needed for a majority. The Tories currently have 318, or 319 if they hold Kensington. Add the DUP, and they're up to 329. 4 rebels, of which Ken Clarke can be guaranteed to be one, and the Tories no longer have a majority vote.

I think your maths are off - with four rebels they have 324, still a functional majority. It would take seven rebels to actually break the government.

Which is still pitiful.

[Pannonian]

I think your maths are off - with four rebels they have 324, still a functional majority. It would take seven rebels to actually break the government.

Which is still pitiful.

Hmm, I forgot to take the DUP MPs from the opposition total. Still, Kensington may well be a Labour gain, as two previous counts have been a double figure Labour win with a third abandoned and the fourth ongoing.

[Idaho]

I think your maths are off - with four rebels they have 324, still a functional majority. It would take seven rebels to actually break the government.

Which is still pitiful.
There is no real chance of a left alliance being viable, even if Labour had another 20 seats. Too many variables, and the liberals, after going on about proportional representation and coalitions for decades, ruined the reputation of both in the space of a few years. It would take a target of opportunity - a tory revolt - for a successful no confidence vote to trigger an election.

All Labour need to do is watch and wait. The knives will be out soon enough for May. The tories have no shortage of ambitious and ruthless people. It's brains and souls they lack.

[Beskar]

https://twitter.com/Trump_ton/status/873172638679609344
"I'm confused, it's now ok to be in collusion with the political wing of Irish terrorism and religious extremists?"

[Idaho]

The tories put the electoral interests of their party leader first when they held the referendum. Now they are doing the same while jeopardising the northern Ireland peace. Typical Tories.

[Beskar]

Jonathan Pie describes the result as "Socialist Strikes Back!" and as a big F-U to the now dead New Labour opposition which didn't rally behind their leader in his latest video (https://youtu.be/qsGVghRBdKI).

Definitely not good news for Pannonian.

[Pannonian]

Labour gain Kensington, leaving ConDUP on 328, the rest minus Sinn Fein on 315. Difference of 13, so anywhere between 13 abstentions or 7 direct rebels will negate the government majority.

[Furunculus]

That happened before the new and clearer mandate, didn't it? If so, what is this period following this renewed mandate? Post-end point? Does the new mandate change anything? If not, what was the point of seeking it?

No, the election was intended to build a mandate based on that letter.
This being a... logical response to the notion that no one knew what type of brexit we voted for last june.

[Pannonian]

No, the election was intended to build a mandate based on that letter.
This being a... logical response to the notion that no one knew what type of brexit we voted for last june.

So does this election strengthen the Redwood wing or the (formerly) Osborne wing of the Tories in their negotiating direction?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jonathan Pie describes the result as "Socialist Strikes Back!" and as a big F-U to the now dead New Labour opposition which didn't rally behind their leader in his latest video (https://youtu.be/qsGVghRBdKI).

Definitely not good news for Pannonian.

Saw it - Corbyn still lost, though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saw Nick Clegg lost his seat. I don't have anything to add to that, just figured it should be noted in this conversation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saw it - Corbyn still lost, though.

You have a point. But if Corbyn continues to pull 70+% of youth vote in multiple elections based on the momentum of this election wouldn't you call this, if not an electoral victory, a strategic victory?
I do not buy the narrative that this embarrassment for the Tories was 100% on the hands of May's leadership.

[HopAlongBunny]

I do not buy the narrative that this embarrassment for the Tories was 100% on the hands of May's leadership.

I think it is. She did not have to "seek a mandate"; political miscalculation rests on her.
As for clarity: achieved! People are less wedded to Brexit than the Tory majority suggested; pulling the trigger when she did (w/o some definite victory to suggest momentum) diplayed hubris not leadership.

[Pannonian]

You have a point. But if Corbyn continues to pull 70+% of youth vote in multiple elections based on the momentum of this election wouldn't you call this, if not an electoral victory, a strategic victory?
I do not buy the narrative that this embarrassment for the Tories was 100% on the hands of May's leadership.

The youth vote is always heavily Labour. The youth vote that is heavily Labour is also heavily Tory once they get past a certain age. The same individuals.

[Pannonian]

Saw it - Corbyn still lost, though.

From the sounds of it, she runs her cabinet like Corbyn runs his shadow cabinet. "We all :daisy:ing hate her. She :daisy:ed us."

[Idaho]

Saw it - Corbyn still lost, though.

As I stated before. One side battled against the odds, changed the political and demographic landscape and motivated a new generation to left politics. The other side just pissed away every advantage, crippled the government and disgraced the party. Still, true blue all the way eh?

[Brenus]

It was good for T-Rex May to be confronted to un-electable Corbyn...:laugh4:

[Furunculus]

So does this election strengthen the Redwood wing or the (formerly) Osborne wing of the Tories in their negotiating direction?

she failed, so the osborne wing:

https://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/the-strategic-implications-of-britains.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I stated before. One side battled against the odds, changed the political and demographic landscape and motivated a new generation to left politics. The other side just pissed away every advantage, crippled the government and disgraced the party. Still, true blue all the way eh?

Actually, I returned to my default position (Lib Dem).

Corbyn got the biggest Labour vote since 1997, May got the biggest Conservative vote since 1979.

Given that May basically self-destructed in the last week it's a wonder Corbyn couldn't win. On the other hand, opinion polls will have motivated the Left base to come out for Labour whilst leaving the Tory base complacent until the last minute, by which time they will have had a hard time getting their heads around the idea of losing.

As to changing the political landscape, in Westminster maybe but there has always been a deep seam of Socialism in the UK, it has just tended to remain untapped.

[Pannonian]

she failed, so the osborne wing:

https://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/the-strategic-implications-of-britains.html

How are “ease of trade with the Irish Republic and throughout the EU” and “arrangements to facilitate ease of movement of people, goods and services.” compatible with a hard Brexit? Also, are all the Tory MPs minus Ken Clarke going to hold to the whip if withdrawal from the single market is voted on?

[Beskar]

I got to admit, the most surprising thing int his election was how the Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland.

[Gilrandir]

How long can Theresa last? What a mess she's made. 10 days go until negotiations for brexit start and she's left the country without a government.

To sum the thread up: the last two prime ministers turned out to be bad gamblers and the bets they put all their money on were bad calls.


You are right. This is May's big day.

You can shorten it just to May Day.

[Furunculus]

How are “ease of trade with the Irish Republic and throughout the EU” and “arrangements to facilitate ease of movement of people, goods and services.” compatible with a hard Brexit? Also, are all the Tory MPs minus Ken Clarke going to hold to the whip if withdrawal from the single market is voted on?

Again, i return to my question: what is this "hard brexit" thing of which you speak? **

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/dup-conservatives-largely-agree-shape-uk-eu-deal-election-result-poses-questions-answers/

The irish border is a fun problem, but nothing in this is easy.
Importantly, there is no rule/law/norm the EU has ever acquired that it hasn't been willing to drop in an instant if expediency demands it.
There is good will on both sides to solve this problem, it will be solved.

It does not [require] EEA access as the [only] possible mechanism to achieve this end.




** to me it means acrimony and wto terms, not whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

[Idaho]

After a campaign that tried to link Corbyn to the IRA because he supported dialogue in ulster - the tories have now put the political wing of the loyalist paramilitary/terrorist group, the UDA, into government.
19697

[Pannonian]

Again, i return to my question: what is this "hard brexit" thing of which you speak? **

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/dup-conservatives-largely-agree-shape-uk-eu-deal-election-result-poses-questions-answers/

The irish border is a fun problem, but nothing in this is easy.
Importantly, there is no rule/law/norm the EU has ever acquired that it hasn't been willing to drop in an instant if expediency demands it.
There is good will on both sides to solve this problem, it will be solved.

It does not [require] EEA access as the [only] possible mechanism to achieve this end.




** to me it means acrimony and wto terms, not whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

Hard Brexit is anything that loses us our current economic situation within the EU. I don't really care about the political situation, as long as the economic situation retains the (pre-2016) status quo. Soft Brexit is anything that retains said status quo whilst finding workarounds around the edges of that.

[Beskar]

Again, i return to my question: what is this "hard brexit" thing of which you speak? **

** to me it means acrimony and wto terms, not whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

Hard Brexit is leaving all the European institutions.

[Idaho]

I got to admit, the most surprising thing int his election was how the Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland.

It goes to show how self defeating the SNP call for a second independence vote was. Sturgeon overplayed her hand after the Scottish remain vote. She should have called for a vote for Scotland to remain in the EU. Little incremental wedges, rather than stampeding in for the bullseye again.

[Montmorency]

whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.

You keep saying that. Would you be interested in enrolling into a de-radicalization program?

[Furunculus]

Hard Brexit is anything that loses us our current economic situation within the EU. I don't really care about the political situation, as long as the economic situation retains the (pre-2016) status quo. Soft Brexit is anything that retains said status quo whilst finding workarounds around the edges of that.



Hard Brexit is leaving all the European institutions.

Two very different views there:
One, I think referring to a distinctly disadvantageous economic situation, relative to that which we had.
The other, equating brexit'ness with an institutional (and political) closeness.

I can sympathise with the first, though I believe we differ over whether EEA access is necessary to prevent this situation arising.
I have no sympathy with the latter, as the whole purpose of voting leave was to achieve breakage from a nascent political union.

There is a logic in seeking to avoid the jurisdiction of the ECJ - especially if it means being a rule-taker - when the EU has such a poor reputation for conflating the single market with political union.
But I am not in principle opposed to remaining in the EEA, not least because single market competences are so much less enveloping than required by wider EU membership, using Norway as an example.

The key here is: does the EU understand that Britain's problem has always been the attempt to subvert the strict economic utility of the single market with a social and fiscal land-grab that can only be justified by political union. The eurozone is not the single market. Blair's discarding the Social Chapter opt-out was an excellent catylyst for a future Leave vote, entirely justified by its inevitable misuse in bringing in EU social and employment legislation in via the legislative back door.

If they can, and undertake to continue their political project under the eagis of the eurozone legal framework (thank you Mr Cameron, circa 2011), then sure, the EEA is a viable prospect.
If they cannot, then goodbye to the ECJ, and hello to some bespoke arrangement based on mutual recognition and sectoral equiovalence.

But, I do not consider the latter to necessarily constitute a "hard brexit"**.But that is because I place as much emotional importance and personal identity in the EU as I did in the department for business, skills and innovation. n.b. I think it was scrapped a while back, did anyone notice...?





** Failing to achieve it would be a hard brexit

[Idaho]

May's joint chiefs of staff just resigned.

And two out of three on conservative home say she should go:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/06/our-snap-survey-two-in-three-conservative-party-members-say-that-may-should-announce-her-resignation.html

Drip drip....

[Fragony]

What I see is a very vulnerable burocracy in panic, the EUcracy is only alive because we don't kill it and they know it

[LittleGrizzly]

I got to admit, the most surprising thing int his election was how the Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/807559/Kezia-Dugdale-Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-Scottish-independence-poll-Ruth-Davidson

Unfortunately we have an anti- Corbyn labour leader up North who think it is important that people in certain areas get out and vote Tory......

Maybe she was hoping to contribute to a Tory landslide that would have got Corbyn out, with 'friends' like these...

Ruth Davidson still did well don't get me wrong but hammering the SNP on independence and getting Labour to tell people to vote for you in a couple of areas doesn't seem like a long term winning strategy, a very good short term one though.

[Idaho]

Corbyn got the biggest Labour vote since 1997, May got the biggest Conservative vote since 1979.

It was a very old fashioned British election really. Obviously you have new stuff - SNP, youth vote, etc. But it was a two party election. 2008 being a high water mark for little parties.

[Fragony]

There was only one real election and the Brits voted for a Brexit, next election was about who's going to ignore it. Same here, we (the Dutch population) never wanted a EU-constitution or associaten-treaty witk Ukraine because we don't want trouble with Russia but we got it anyway. We voted against both but it's signed anyway. Elections, kidding me there is no choice only an answer and the answer is stfu

[Pannonian]

There was only one real election and the Brits voted for a Brexit, next election was about who's going to ignore it. Same here, we (the Dutch population) never wanted a EU-constitution or associaten-treaty witk Ukraine because we don't want trouble with Russia but we got it anyway. We voted against both but it's signed anyway. Elections, kidding me there is no choice only an answer and the answer is stfu

So who did you vote for on Thursday? Tories? UKIP?

[Fragony]

So who did you vote for on Thursday? Tories? UKIP?

Asking that to me is just as meaningless as me asking it to you, you will always get the same regardless.

[Idaho]

There was only one real election and the Brits voted for a Brexit, next election was about who's going to ignore it. Same here, we (the Dutch population) never wanted a EU-constitution or associaten-treaty witk Ukraine because we don't want trouble with Russia but we got it anyway. We voted against both but it's signed anyway. Elections, kidding me there is no choice only an answer and the answer is stfu

Europe is just not important to that many people here. However there is a minority of people, and a significant number of media barons, who are really bothered by it. When people were presented with a referendum, most took it either as a chance for a protest vote, or as a way to get a bit nationalistic.

[Fragony]

Europe is just not important to that many people here. However there is a minority of people, and a significant number of media barons, who are really bothered by it. When people were presented with a referendum, most took it either as a chance for a protest vote, or as a way to get a bit nationalistic.


They called it a 'protest vote' here as well, think a little further, it's no settled matter for the EU to exist it's thrown upon us. I can see it as nothing else than a very aggresive entity that has very little popular support, and who will never take no for an answer. They frankly scare the shit out of me because they are sure of themselves, and are so hostile to those who doesn't want them. It's 1984 but in 2017

[Pannonian]

Europe is just not important to that many people here. However there is a minority of people, and a significant number of media barons, who are really bothered by it. When people were presented with a referendum, most took it either as a chance for a protest vote, or as a way to get a bit nationalistic.

Hard Brexit has bloody significant knock on effects.

[Pannonian]

And Ruth Davidson says that the Scottish Tories will oppose any break from the single market. If the Scottish Tories follow her lead, they'll more than outweigh the DUP in any vote on a hard Brexit. And I'd imagine Ken Clarke won't be the only English Tory to cross the floor on that issue (Anna Soubry has also openly come out against it).

[LittleGrizzly]

Doesn't the single market come tied with freedom of movement?

Which would wreck the whole point a large number of people voted leave in the first place. We'd end up paying a bill and losing influence whilst achieving very little of what most leave voters wanted.

[Idaho]

So this big "England votes on English laws" that the tories were so insistent on as a great moral and political line in the sand....?

I'm guessing it's no longer really a big priority. Quelle surprise.

[Pannonian]

Doesn't the single market come tied with freedom of movement?

Which would wreck the whole point a large number of people voted leave in the first place. We'd end up paying a bill and losing influence whilst achieving very little of what most leave voters wanted.

The biggest fears were about a section of immigration which we had full control of in the first place. Which was why the UKIP-sponsored posters about freedom of movement meaning an influx of Muslims was both lying and stupid. Not stupid in terms of getting what they wanted; it was a genius move. But stupid in terms of the logic and what the politics-based Brexit deal will do to the country. If we approach any deal with the must have issue being single market access and the economic status quo, then we can accept whatever the price that requires, and argue the toss over what that allows. If we approach the negotiations with anything other than the economy as the must have, then we will screw our economy and this country for the rest of my lifetime. Europe matters hugely, as it determines our economy and from that everything else.


So this big "England votes on English laws" that the tories were so insistent on as a great moral and political line in the sand....?

I'm guessing it's no longer really a big priority. Quelle surprise.

The Tories have a majority in England. Take Northern Ireland out of the equation, and the SNP have a majority in Scotland and Labour in Wales, leaving the Tories with a majority in England. EVEL favours the Tories, even after this election.

[LittleGrizzly]

Even though a large part of it was due to non-EU immigration you could easily say they were voting for full control over our immigration, which many had been told was the only way to keep us safe, stop them taking services or housing.

Which would mean no freedom of movement, which would mean no access to the single market (as I understand it)

Note I am not at all suggesting that's what I want, but quite frankly if we aren't going to stop freedom of movement, which is what a very large percentage sorta voted on, then there is no point leaving the EU.

[Pannonian]

Even though a large part of it was due to non-EU immigration you could easily say they were voting for full control over our immigration, which many had been told was the only way to keep us safe, stop them taking services or housing.

Which would mean no freedom of movement, which would mean no access to the single market (as I understand it)

Note I am not at all suggesting that's what I want, but quite frankly if we aren't going to stop freedom of movement, which is what a very large percentage sorta voted on, then there is no point leaving the EU.

If that's the single issue they want above all else, then the decision is as stupid as I've said it to be. It will impact the economy, and from that everything else. I'll point out once more that the EU does not require freedom of movement per se, but movement of labour. That's a significant difference which other EU countries mark, but which the UK did not. There was already wriggle room there. If we decide we don't want wriggle room after all, then it goes back to what I've said about the economy.

1. The EU does not require freedom of movement, but freedom of movement of labour. Unemployed EU citizens are not labour and their free movement is not guaranteed.
2. None of that applies to non-EU countries. The UK can restrict movement however it likes from countries outside the EU without it affecting EU agreements. It will impact relations with these other countries, but 50% of the UK's exports go to the EU. Which means every other country in the world put together amounts to our export market of the EU.
3. Are we relying on fuel prices remaining forever low? Are we teleporting our goods overseas to Asia and the Americas, independent of distance?

Edit: Addendum to 1. Even what freedom there is can be waived if public security or various other concerns is an issue. So known criminals, if likely to be a problem, can be barred entry. So can potential jihadis. Each, on a case by case basis, probably challengeable, but nonetheless at the discretion of the UK government.

[LittleGrizzly]

As stupid as it was that is the reason a majority did it, full control over our borders.

Well that and the £350M a week extra for the NHS.

We can only give them it by losing access to the single market.

If we don't then the whole thing will just start back up again, and if we don't then we may as well just stay in the EU.

Doing some kind of botched job which actually pleases nobody and costs money seems pointless, although it does seem to be the plan...

Either do the sensible thing or follow the will of the electorate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The youth vote is always heavily Labour. The youth vote that is heavily Labour is also heavily Tory once they get past a certain age. The same individuals.

I was talking about youth vote turnout. it was in the 40% in 2015.

[Pannonian]

I was talking about youth vote turnout. it was in the 40% in 2015.

The crossover point is still around 35. And the oldest demographic still outnumbers the 18-24 demographic, and consistently turns out in the 70s. If anything, this election has shown that the centre is still where the election is won. Not the 20% hardcore support at either end of the spectrum. But the 60% that can swing either way. May took it for granted.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The crossover point is still around 35. And the oldest demographic still outnumbers the 18-24 demographic, and consistently turns out in the 70s. If anything, this election has shown that the centre is still where the election is won. Not the 20% hardcore support at either end of the spectrum. But the 60% that can swing either way. May took it for granted.

Again, my point is that if Corbyn can keep the momentum of 70% youth turn out going based on the results of this election isn't that a game changer?
I am asking the question of whether all the young showed up, simply because they were scared of May. I doubt it, because they didn't scare about brexit.

[Pannonian]

Again, my point is that if Corbyn can keep the momentum of 70% youth turn out going based on the results of this election isn't that a game changer?
I am asking the question of whether all the young showed up, simply because they were scared of May. I doubt it, because they didn't scare about brexit.

It's unexpected, but are you going to rely on it? Some 50-odd% of the 18-24s turned out in 1997, then they were down to 30-odd in 2001 (before Iraq). It'll be interesting to see how the votes panned out this election. The drop happened after the Tory manifesto came out, which contained some decidedly odd policies that might have been designed to scupper support taken for granted. It's doubtful if the Tories will run such a patently suicidal campaign again.

[LittleGrizzly]

Again, my point is that if Corbyn can keep the momentum of 70% youth turn out going based on the results of this election isn't that a game changer?
I am asking the question of whether all the young showed up, simply because they were scared of May. I doubt it, because they didn't scare about brexit.

TBH I think he can, the demographics still aren't necessarily onside in terms of old vs young but with more younger voters and less older voters in the next election, combined with Scottish Labour not encouraging people to vote Tory and with the Labour party itself not trying to launch coups every couple of years....

He could start to make some serious movement towards government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny thing though - Corbyn still has a negative personal approval rating.

Also, looks like those who voted Labour and gave Corbyn his big swing were substantially composed of last-minuters. At present we don't know if that's Corbyn having an impact or May turning people off - she turned me off.

So, with a new leader the Tories might chip away at Corbyn's swing substantially. They'd likely only need to achieve a percentage point swing the other way to secure a majority.

[LittleGrizzly]

Listened to an interesting programme on Radio 4, might have been any questions or any answers.

The youth vote came up and obviously talk got onto the record turnout amongst young people and then a very interesting call came in from a woman in her 30's with 2 young teenagers, 13 and 15. Apparently politics was being discussed quite regularly amongst her children and their school friends, her children had started coming home and having conversations about politics with her, Brexit was apparently the trigger for this.

More interestingly still was talk of the straw polls conducted and the results overwhelmingly favouring Corbyn. I don't know how possible it is, maybe someone can tell me but I would like May to hang on for the full 5 years or if not as long as possible. This defeat combined with Brexit actually going through is going to make the current young voters and those new ones coming through twice as determined.

TBH considering everything I can only assume that approval rating is guided much more by the older generations, personally I'd be much more interested in approval ratings of all those that vote.

Edit: I was quite upset the night of the Brexit vote but quite frankly the effects so far have incredibly positive, if we are talking trade off this is one I am willing to make.

Edit 2: Some very interesting polls on which way people would vote if the election was tomorrow, very interesting indeed.

[Pannonian]

Funny thing though - Corbyn still has a negative personal approval rating.

Also, looks like those who voted Labour and gave Corbyn his big swing were substantially composed of last-minuters. At present we don't know if that's Corbyn having an impact or May turning people off - she turned me off.

So, with a new leader the Tories might chip away at Corbyn's swing substantially. They'd likely only need to achieve a percentage point swing the other way to secure a majority.

The Tory manifesto was quite incredible, in how it seemingly sought to hit every single wrong note to piss off every demographic. The campaign, other than focusing on Corbyn, sought only to please one demographic: Brexit voters. It was based on the premise that UKIP was the gateway drug towards voting Tory. In the event, the UKIP vote evaporated as predicted, but fewer than predicted turned blue, with many returning to the red fold. With this overriding premise insufficiently correct, the Tories turned off significant numbers with their suicidal policies and May's non-appearances. Like I've said before, May's style is even more presidential than Blair ever was, except she has even less ability to carry it off, and consequently looks arrogant and out of touch. In many ways, May's campaign was the antithesis of Major in 1992.

[Pannonian]

Listened to an interesting programme on Radio 4, might have been any questions or any answers.

The youth vote came up and obviously talk got onto the record turnout amongst young people and then a very interesting call came in from a woman in her 30's with 2 young teenagers, 13 and 15. Apparently politics was being discussed quite regularly amongst her children and their school friends, her children had started coming home and having conversations about politics with her, Brexit was apparently the trigger for this.

More interestingly still was talk of the straw polls conducted and the results overwhelmingly favouring Corbyn. I don't know how possible it is, maybe someone can tell me but I would like May to hang on for the full 5 years or if not as long as possible. This defeat combined with Brexit actually going through is going to make the current young voters and those new ones coming through twice as determined.

TBH considering everything I can only assume that approval rating is guided much more by the older generations, personally I'd be much more interested in approval ratings of all those that vote.

Edit: I was quite upset the night of the Brexit vote but quite frankly the effects so far have incredibly positive, if we are talking trade off this is one I am willing to make.

Edit 2: Some very interesting polls on which way people would vote if the election was tomorrow, very interesting indeed.

It should be remembered that the Tories remain in power despite all that May has done. The election has staved off hard Brexit for the time being, but the Tories are still in the driving seat.

[LittleGrizzly]

Obviously things can change but to be honest in a short term pain long term gain kind of way that could be for the best, her or another Tory in charge for a couple of years at least. I think young people are going to be disgusted at the thinking of the party they are now in cahoots with as well.

[Pannonian]

Obviously things can change but to be honest in a short term pain long term gain kind of way that could be for the best, her or another Tory in charge for a couple of years at least. I think young people are going to be disgusted at the thinking of the party they are now in cahoots with as well.

If you're banking on young people becoming disgusted with the DUP alliance, note that most of that demographic is already voting Labour. There's not much left to gain there. Before May made a determined effort to throw these votes away, the two ends of the spectrum were solidly Labour and Tory. The crossover point is around 35. That's roughly where the centre is. What you do is retain sufficient of your core support, and push that line as far as you can, without pissing them off too much that voting for you will be anathema.

Note that next time, the Tories won't be pushing a dementia tax, starving children, or killing foxes. And it won't be May leading them.

[LittleGrizzly]

Next time the Labour party won't be trying to oust its popular leader and brand him unelectable. The Tories will struggle to make much play with any threats of coalitions of chaos and the media is going to struggle to play the same mantra about Corbyn being unelectable and useless.

Also maybe we won't have Scottish Labour telling people to vote Labour, she knows she can't remove Corbyn so maybe she will actually get on with her job of winning Labour seats now. Imagine the difference if we had Scottish Tories pushing a Labour vote!!

[Pannonian]

Next time the Labour party won't be trying to oust its popular leader and brand him unelectable. The Tories will struggle to make much play with any threats of coalitions of chaos and the media is going to struggle to play the same mantra about Corbyn being unelectable and useless.

Also maybe we won't have Scottish Labour telling people to vote Labour, she knows she can't remove Corbyn so maybe she will actually get on with her job of winning Labour seats now. Imagine the difference if we had Scottish Tories pushing a Labour vote!!

Which demographic will Labour win over next time? Look up the graph of how age group is the closest correlation with how a demographic votes, how the crossover point is at 35 or thereabouts, and how this has held true for decades. Remember that Corbyn is immensely popular with Labour members. That does not equal British voters.

Everyone and their dog can see how the Tory mistakes, at least those not relating to Brexit, can be rectified next time. Don't unnecessarily piss off older voters. Don't make it easy to portray the Tories as the nasty party. Get someone in who can face an audience with questions. None of which is particularly difficult (it was far harder to come up with the perfect :daisy:storm that May did). And that addresses to upper end of the spectrum and a fair bit of the rest. And they start as the largest party by more than 50 seats.

Elections are won in the centre. The crossover point is at 35.

[Idaho]

Funny thing though - Corbyn still has a negative personal approval rating.

Also, looks like those who voted Labour and gave Corbyn his big swing were substantially composed of last-minuters. At present we don't know if that's Corbyn having an impact or May turning people off - she turned me off.

So, with a new leader the Tories might chip away at Corbyn's swing substantially. They'd likely only need to achieve a percentage point swing the other way to secure a majority.

Because it's not about Corbyn. It's about politics with some honesty and not just spin and expediency. About social democracy and not neo liberalism. Labour could have picked a better candidate - but the others were blairites. That means spin and neo liberalism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If May had turned up to both TV debates and said nothing about fox hunting I reckon they Tories would have gained 10-30 seats. It is by no means clear that support for Corbyn is deep among young people so much as broad.

It's also worth remembering that all these young people voting for him would be mostly too young to remember much of Castro or Chavez, and might not have been born before the IRA ceasefire. Thus far the Tories have treated Corbyn like something of a clown, not taken him seriously.

Now they will be going for him with knives and you can knock a lot of the veneer off an English Socialist by linking him to terrorists and tin-pot South American Dictators.

Nobody's asked him why he supported Castro whilst calling for Pinochet to be arrested yet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because it's not about Corbyn. It's about politics with some honesty and not just spin and expediency. About social democracy and not neo liberalism. Labour could have picked a better candidate - but the others were blairites. That means spin and neo liberalism.

Corbyn is not honest. He is, at best, self-deceptive.

I would argue his popularity IS primarily personal because he has become a personal emblem of Socialism.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah that is definitely the problem... the media didn't go after Corbyn hard enough... maybe the conservatives just weren't right wing enough. Double down and go again I say.

[Pannonian]

Yeah that is definitely the problem... the media didn't go after Corbyn hard enough... maybe the conservatives just weren't right wing enough. Double down and go again I say.

Didn't you argue earlier that Labour should double down on the youth vote? Probably because they'd be so disgusted with the DUP that the youth vote will count double next time.

The Tories did a number of extraordinarily stupid things. Jaw-dropping stuff. Yet they have 318 MPs. It wouldn't take much to correct these mistakes; just some reasonably competent political operators. Labour will re-start from a lower level, but they've already pretty much squeezed the youth vote dry. This is the high point without moving for the centre. That means persuading the 30-50 demographic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

D but they've already pretty much squeezed the youth vote dry.

Technically, there is still another 25% of the youth vote that could be motivated to vote labour next election...

[Furunculus]

Doesn't the single market come tied with freedom of movement?

Which would wreck the whole point a large number of people voted leave in the first place. We'd end up paying a bill and losing influence whilst achieving very little of what most leave voters wanted.just remember that not all leavers made brexit about immigration.

my problems with immigration is not about immigration per-se, it's about a failure of integration caused by multi-culturalism.
that is [our] fault, not the EU's.

my reason - and that of the majority of leavers in Ashcroft's exit polls - was sovereignty.

[Pannonian]

Technically, there is still another 25% of the youth vote that could be motivated to vote labour next election...

Technically. But they're getting older, and historically people follow the demographic trends. Historically young people also don't vote. So will there be a reversion to mean? Meanwhile, there are some very easy things that the Tories can do to regain their vote in the higher age group. Which, let's not forget, outnumbers the lower age group. The Tories nearly have a majority, and they did quite a few astonishingly stupid things in the election. If they eliminate the obvious stupidities, they can easily get back up above the majority mark.

It all goes back to the given wisdom that elections are won in the centre. If Labour want power, they need to look at the 30-50 demographic.

[Pannonian]

just remember that not all leavers made brexit about immigration.

my problems with immigration is not about immigration per-se, it's about a failure of integration caused by multi-culturalism.
that is [our] fault, not the EU's.

my reason - and that of the majority of leavers in Ashcroft's exit polls - was sovereignty.

That could have been dealt with whilst still within the EU though.

Would you be ok if we cancelled Brexit, but the Westminster government tightens up on existing powers as they're entitled to do, as various EU countries do?

[Pannonian]

May already starting to brief against her rivals, warning them she knows where the skeletons are buried. I think I can do without effective government for a while while I enjoy watching this spectacle. Not as enjoyable as 1997, but more amusing.

[Idaho]

Which demographic will Labour win over next time? Look up the graph of how age group is the closest correlation with how a demographic votes, how the crossover point is at 35 or thereabouts, and how this has held true for decades. Remember that Corbyn is immensely popular with Labour members. That does not equal British voters.

Everyone and their dog can see how the Tory mistakes, at least those not relating to Brexit, can be rectified next time. Don't unnecessarily piss off older voters. Don't make it easy to portray the Tories as the nasty party. Get someone in who can face an audience with questions. None of which is particularly difficult (it was far harder to come up with the perfect :daisy:storm that May did). And that addresses to upper end of the spectrum and a fair bit of the rest. And they start as the largest party by more than 50 seats.

Elections are won in the centre. The crossover point is at 35.

Much of this is true, but you overlook the fact that the "centre" in British politics is never set in stone. What constitutes the broad political consensus shifts all the time. Gay rights are fringe 40 years ago. Privatising the NHS also.

The centre is changed by defining moments and elections. I am happy with this last result as it can't help but move certain policies into the consensus/centre.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah that is definitely the problem... the media didn't go after Corbyn hard enough... maybe the conservatives just weren't right wing enough. Double down and go again I say.

Look, will you make an effort to read my posts instead of just wheeling out pat answers?

This isn't about the Tories needing to be more "right-wing".

First off, "double down and go again" is Corbyn to Milliband, so pot kettle black there. The point I was making is that the Conservatives only made half-hearted attacks on Corbyn's record.

How much of the youth vote will come out for him once it gets wifely circulated that he was in bed with Holocaust deniers ten years ago?

[Pannonian]

Look, will you make an effort to read my posts instead of just wheeling out pat answers?

This isn't about the Tories needing to be more "right-wing".

First off, "double down and go again" is Corbyn to Milliband, so pot kettle black there. The point I was making is that the Conservatives only made half-hearted attacks on Corbyn's record.

How much of the youth vote will come out for him once it gets wifely circulated that he was in bed with Holocaust deniers ten years ago?

Reported for obscene content. Need mind bleach.

[LittleGrizzly]

Look, will you make an effort to read my posts instead of just wheeling out pat answers?

This isn't about the Tories needing to be more "right-wing".

First off, "double down and go again" is Corbyn to Milliband, so pot kettle black there. The point I was making is that the Conservatives only made half-hearted attacks on Corbyn's record.

How much of the youth vote will come out for him once it gets wifely circulated that he was in bed with Holocaust deniers ten years ago?

I think the constant smears against him is part of what turns the youth vote off the Conservatives TBH, just promise not to tell Tory HQ!

[LittleGrizzly]

just remember that not all leavers made brexit about immigration.

my problems with immigration is not about immigration per-se, it's about a failure of integration caused by multi-culturalism.
that is [our] fault, not the EU's.

my reason - and that of the majority of leavers in Ashcroft's exit polls - was sovereignty.

TBH that sovereignty largely tended to be about full control of our borders from my (limited) experience but out of interest for you personally is there a solution which includes the single market, free movement of Labour and sovereignty?

[Fragony]

TBH that sovereignty largely tended to be about full control of our borders from my (limited) experience but out of interest for you personally is there a solution which includes the single market, free movement of Labour and sovereignty?

Maybe it's simpler, Brits just don't apreciate the downright hostile tone of tbe scared cats in Brussels

[LittleGrizzly]

So Fragony would withdraw his leave vote in the UK if the EU were just a bit more respectful??

Does this take the form of something particular like control of over a certain set of policies?

[Pannonian]

I'll add that, in my experience, multiculturalism involving other Europeans has not been a problem. They're fairly close to us culturally, and they're willing to work to fit in. Problems mainly involve migrants from outside the EU. We can restrict migrants from selected countries outside the EU without it affecting existing EU agreements. There is quite a lot national governments can do within existing EU frameworks, which other countries do, but the UK does not.

[Pannonian]

So Fragony would withdraw his leave vote in the UK if the EU were just a bit more respectful??

Does this take the form of something particular like control of over a certain set of policies?

Maybe next time Frag will vote Lib Dem or some other UK party that supports continued membership of the EU.

[Idaho]

Look, will you make an effort to read my posts instead of just wheeling out pat answers?

This isn't about the Tories needing to be more "right-wing".

First off, "double down and go again" is Corbyn to Milliband, so pot kettle black there. The point I was making is that the Conservatives only made half-hearted attacks on Corbyn's record.

How much of the youth vote will come out for him once it gets wifely circulated that he was in bed with Holocaust deniers ten years ago?

In bed? You mean talking to people who have crazy and unpalatable views?

And yet, like a true right winger, you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye. The tories have numerous mps who come out with racist, hateful, bonkers stuff all the time. But as they are middle class white men you (and the media) don't find them problematic. The tories are in government with the DUP! THE DUP! And you don't engage with that at all? That's nothing?!

[Fragony]

Maybe next time Frag will vote Lib Dem or some other UK party that supports continued membership of the EU.

Well I can't. But you will have to wait very long for me to consider the EU anything other than hostile to me. They are because I completily disregard it's need to exist, they scream 'populists' if you are against the EU. Look the word up and why and when

[Elmetiacos]

If May had turned up to both TV debates and said nothing about fox hunting I reckon they Tories would have gained 10-30 seats. It is by no means clear that support for Corbyn is deep among young people so much as broad.

It's also worth remembering that all these young people voting for him would be mostly too young to remember much of Castro or Chavez, and might not have been born before the IRA ceasefire. Thus far the Tories have treated Corbyn like something of a clown, not taken him seriously.

Now they will be going for him with knives and you can knock a lot of the veneer off an English Socialist by linking him to terrorists and tin-pot South American Dictators.

Nobody's asked him why he supported Castro whilst calling for Pinochet to be arrested yet.
The tabloids endlessly raked over supposed IRA/Sinn Féin links, it didn't do very much good and now that approach is pretty well buggered by the Tories sitting down to coalition talks with the organisers of Ulster Resistance - the ones who stole top secret arms from British factories to sell to gun runners from apartheid South Africa. So far as the average British voter of any age is concerned, all the Northern Irish politicos and paramilitaries are as bad as each other. Chavez is a hate figure only for people who are already on the political right anyway. More to the point, Blairism was successful in the 90s because back then, the capitalist system appeared to be working just fine and everyone was getting richer at (nearly) all levels of society. If you're an 18 year old first time voter now, the crash happened when you were nine. You have no meaningful recollection of those days: to you the system is and always has been broken, capitalism equals austerity and food banks.

[Furunculus]

That could have been dealt with whilst still within the EU though.

Would you be ok if we cancelled Brexit, but the Westminster government tightens up on existing powers as they're entitled to do, as various EU countries do?

Sure.

But no, it wouldn't be cool to cancel Brexit if we sorted [that] problem, because [that] problem has literally no bearing on my vote to leave.

I do not care very much about immigration one way or the other, it isn't a trigger for my inner political animal. ;)


TBH that sovereignty largely tended to be about full control of our borders from my (limited) experience but out of interest for you personally is there a solution which includes the single market, free movement of Labour and sovereignty?

That wasn't what Ashcroft showed.

Yes, a legal undertaking to ensure the separation of the internal market from all of the social and fiscal legislation they will need to make the eurozone work**. In that circumstance, i'd be very happy to remain in EEA/Efta.

My vote to leave was in large part because the 'emergency' of eurozone incompetence was always trying to be fixed at the level of the EU28 as a 'single-market' matter.

If that is not possible, i'd be fine with something hung off the bones of the Ukraine DCFTA.



** Cameron secured this for Britain, in theory, and i'd have been content with that until Belgium insisted it only apply to Britain. In one move shafting the little countries and denying us a coalition to enforce the opt-out from QMV.

[Pannonian]

And McDonnell wants out of the single market, ie. hard Brexit. With the Tories lacking a majority, will Corbyn once more whip his MPs towards a hard Brexit, and will they obey with the prospect of stopping such in combination with Tory rebels?

I didn't vote Labour for the first time in my life, and if McDonnell is indicative of the direction Labour will take, I won't do so again for the foreseeable future.

[Furunculus]

And McDonnell wants out of the single market, ie. hard Brexit.

We still haven't really addressed what a hard brexit actually is:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152624-UK-General-Election-2017&p=2053750937&viewfull=1#post2053750937

[Pannonian]

We still haven't really addressed what a hard brexit actually is:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152624-UK-General-Election-2017&p=2053750937&viewfull=1#post2053750937

I've told you what my definition of a hard Brexit is. Is there any way in which McDonnell's wish does not qualify as a hard Brexit as per my definition?

[Furunculus]

I've told you what my definition of a hard Brexit is. Is there any way in which McDonnell's wish does not qualify as a hard Brexit as per my definition?

i never really got [why] you define not being in the single market and customs union to be a hard brexit.

yes, in the absence of anything else it would be bad economically, possibly bad enough to justify the term "hard brexit".

but why would we or should we presume that we would put nothing else in its place?

[Beskar]

I still wonder why Philippus voted for the Lib Dems. I do have a theory, but it would be disappointing if that theory is true, so I am pondering alternatives.

[Furunculus]

i did too. ;)

[Beskar]

i did too. ;)

I remember you saying years ago about voting Lib dem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In bed? You mean talking to people who have crazy and unpalatable views?

And yet, like a true right winger, you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye. The tories have numerous mps who come out with racist, hateful, bonkers stuff all the time. But as they are middle class white men you (and the media) don't find them problematic. The tories are in government with the DUP! THE DUP! And you don't engage with that at all? That's nothing?!

Yes, the DUP are probably only one very small cut above Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein are, admittedly, good socialists.

What annoys me id Corbyn claiming he was trying to "promote dialogue" when in reality he was supporting one side specifically.

As to racist things MP's say - Labout has admitted to having a problem with anti-Semitism that extends up to the former London Mayor.


I still wonder why Philippus voted for the Lib Dems. I do have a theory, but it would be disappointing if that theory is true, so I am pondering alternatives.

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

It's not hard to work out - I enthusiastically supported the Coalition that brought the two sundered halves of the Whigs back together in the figures of Cameron and Clegg. I was willing and fairly happy to support Cameron as a Whig to moderate Tory. Theresa May, however, has shown herself to be something much worse than a Tory - a Thatcherite. Meanwhile, while I don't like Tim Farron he is at least a Liberal. So long as the Liberal wing of the Lib-Dems is in ascendancy I will probably continue to support them. Expect that to change sharpish if the Social Democrats take over.

[Idaho]

Why are the DUP better than sinn fein? Sinn fein at least have a political cause. The DUP are just flat earthers, ex thug drug dealers and anti Catholic bigots.

[Pannonian]

Why are the DUP better than sinn fein? Sinn fein at least have a political cause. The DUP are just flat earthers, ex thug drug dealers and anti Catholic bigots.

The DUP are worth 10 votes. Sinn Fein are worth 0 votes.

[Idaho]

To be fair to May, she did warn of a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathisers.

[Pannonian]

Yes, the DUP are probably only one very small cut above Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein are, admittedly, good socialists.

What annoys me id Corbyn claiming he was trying to "promote dialogue" when in reality he was supporting one side specifically.

As to racist things MP's say - Labout has admitted to having a problem with anti-Semitism that extends up to the former London Mayor.

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

It's not hard to work out - I enthusiastically supported the Coalition that brought the two sundered halves of the Whigs back together in the figures of Cameron and Clegg. I was willing and fairly happy to support Cameron as a Whig to moderate Tory. Theresa May, however, has shown herself to be something much worse than a Tory - a Thatcherite. Meanwhile, while I don't like Tim Farron he is at least a Liberal. So long as the Liberal wing of the Lib-Dems is in ascendancy I will probably continue to support them. Expect that to change sharpish if the Social Democrats take over.

Where do you place Churchill in your political spectrum? That's Winston Spencer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where do you place Churchill in your political spectrum? That's Winston Spencer.

Well, Chruchill wasn't entirely consistent politically. I suppose he was primarily a Unionist, which is why he flitted between Conservativism and Liberalism. He was also an Imperialist, though, which doesn't really translate into anything today.

[Beskar]

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

www.whigs.uk

The fancy the symbol they used is a fox made me chuckle.

[Pannonian]

Well, Chruchill wasn't entirely consistent politically. I suppose he was primarily a Unionist, which is why he flitted between Conservativism and Liberalism. He was also an Imperialist, though, which doesn't really translate into anything today.

He and Lloyd George were at the forefront of reformist Liberalism, although Churchill is mainly known as a war leader today.

[Greyblades]

That mentality is not applicable to either side except possibly regarding the "divorce bill" which is really wrangling over what spending commitments the UK had already commited to. In any event, a hard Brexit isn't a threat, it's more like someone threatening to blow off their own foot with a shotgun while warning that it will wake up the baby in the next room.

You don't actually believe the EU is immune from being damaged by brexit, do you? Ignoring the blow of losing the second largest of only 5 (http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12) major net contributors to the EU he UK is a net importer of EU goods, any increase in tariffs and fees on European trade via brexit negotiations breaking down will have an impact on their economies as well as ours.

You are such a fool, I have no idea why I debating with you. Perhaps only so you don't sway the thoughts of more intelligent people.

The idea that Labour just showed up and were gifted the election is demonstrable nonsense. How can you get 72% of the youth vote to show up when traditionally only 20%ish normally vote if you are just the default "other option" of people who were going to vote anyway. How can you win Canterbury and run Hastings and Kensington to the wire if you are just attracting an apathetic fringe of protest votes from Tories. Total nonsense and as ever you humiliate yourself by parading your ignorance and stupidity.

Pot, kettle, black. Or do you call insults a height of intelligent discourse?

That would explain a lot, though not why you think that intelligent people would be swayed by either obvious fool.

Those numbers are high, but irrelevant, the youth came out at 70% and labour still lost by a wide margin, it didn't win then and it wont win next time, even assuming they could repeat it. As for Canterbury you gain that seats by having a conservative party shoot itself in the face, why else would a 100 year Tory safe seat go red?


This is your personal impression of Corbyn and May, and the relation to empirical evidence is not evident. The case that May's performance alone affected public mood to such a degree that anyone other than Corbyn would have turned around a comfortable majority, or vice-versa for a Conservative majority, is on its face an attempt to invent a dramatic narrative. I suspect it is ungrounded in British history and modern events beyond the existence of individuals named Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.
It is my personal impression but the relation to empirical evidence is only not presented, it's existence let alone orientation is not exhibited either way in either side of our discourse.

Your assertion that it does not support me is your own personal impression.

You asserted that:

1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.

These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.
1. I asserted that "a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence."

If a minority party cannot gain 51% in a vote it's agenda will be stymied in any form of democracy that does not possess a filibuster rule. If a minority party cannot gain a coalition that raises their vote share to 51% they are incapable of assuming the status of government. When both happens a party is rendered ineffective.

Your assertion that "The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities." is entirely addressed by my statement that it "requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition."

Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of others, it has no independent avenue of action.

2. No I didnt.

3. No I didnt.

I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either 51% necessary to wield effective power.

[Montmorency]

1. I asserted that "a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence."

If a minority party cannot gain 51% in a vote it's agenda will be stymied in any form of democracy that does not possess a filibuster rule. If a minority party cannot gain a coalition that raises their vote share to 51% they are incapable of assuming the status of government. When both happens a party is rendered ineffective.

Your assertion that "The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities." is entirely addressed by my statement that it "requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition."

Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of everyone else, it has no independent avenue of action.

You conceive of political power only in terms of ability to pass a given piece of legislation through a legislature in the near-term, which misunderstands power in democracies. The existence and size of opposition parties limits the actions the governing Party can take, because this isn't about what someone "lets" anyone else have or do. Parliament is not about turn-taking. Parliament is a political institution dependent on the electorate and not a machine for churning out legislature that one actor can hold and wield in denial of others. Every action must run in some way through the approval and vetting of minority parties, to the extent that the less minority support a course of action or legislation has, the more of its power the majority or governing group must expend to secure it - and governments do not have unlimited quantities of this power, either in sheer extent or in some duration of time. Hence, priorities and expedience, i.e. politics.

When you note something like


Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of everyone else

you have to grasp that this is the basis for your political system, it's the expectation and what all the participants are organized about. If it were not the case, all governments would translate to one-party states.



2. No I didnt.

3. No I didnt.

I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either necessary 51% to achieve effective power.

You took it that Corbyn's bad leadership is directly responsible for Labor's lack of a majority in this election. Corbyn could well be a bad leader, or even an acceptable but otherwise inconvenient leader, but you didn't have license to associate leadership from Corbyn, poor or otherwise, with overall election results. At least some of the issue is related to a fundamental misunderstanding, a zero-sum one, of how democracies work, which led you to perceive the election outcome for Labor as a bad one in the first place. What do you make of the proposition that it is categorically impossible for a party like the Liberal Democrats to not have bad leadership?

[Beskar]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/816361/theresa-may-queen-jeremy-corbyn-sinn-fein-gerry-adams-arlene-foster-dup-westminster/amp)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/816361/theresa-may-queen-jeremy-corbyn-sinn-fein-gerry-adams-arlene-foster-dup-westminster/amp)

No, according to your source they're sending their MP's to Parliament to register for Office space, as they always do.

Still not taking their seats, still depriving the Irish people of a voice in Parliament.

[Beskar]

No, according to your source they're sending their MP's to Parliament to register for Office space, as they always do.

Still not taking their seats, still depriving the Irish people of a voice in Parliament.

UPDATED: 17:53, Tue, Jun 13, 2017

It changed.

Disappointing as the original was definitely more interesting political drama wise.

[Furunculus]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/816361/theresa-may-queen-jeremy-corbyn-sinn-fein-gerry-adams-arlene-foster-dup-westminster/amp)
i would have loved it, because it meant we would have broken them on the wheel of british democracy.

but, ah well! next time. ;)

[Pannonian]

FWIW, the youth vote had an unusually heavy turnout this election, but it was still under 60%. The top age group was nearly 80%. And the latter outnumbers the 18-24ers, even disregarding turnout.

[LittleGrizzly]

I didn't think there was an official way to know, secret ballot and the question not being asked at exit polls, rather they try to estimate it?

The figure I heard was 72% though.

[Beskar]

I didn't think there was an official way to know, secret ballot and the question not being asked at exit polls, rather they try to estimate it?

The figure I heard was 72% though.

I heard 72% as well.

Well, they are able to tell who voted because you confirm you are voting whether in poll station and they tick you off or via postal vote confirming with signature.

It is arguably possible you can find out who voted for what as the voting paper has a number which corresponds with you if you have access to the list which says who has what number.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One Cambridge academic was apparently batting the 72% figure around, from talking to SU presidents and others. He hasn't shared his workings yet.

It actually should be easy to work out at polling stations note the voter registration numbers - you should be able to track that back to individuals who register with their NI number, which will give you their age.

[Pannonian]

The 57/59% 18-24 figure is from yougov. IIRC Labour supporters have been talking up their polling since the election, so take their credibility on one with the other if you wish.

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH yougov estimating it at 57/59% might explain why they were a bit out on their predictions compared to results, as opposed to the Cambridge academic, Labour supporter?, who I guess went of the results, although how he came to that figure is a good question....

[Pannonian]

TBH yougov estimating it at 57/59% might explain why they were a bit out on their predictions compared to results, as opposed to the Cambridge academic, Labour supporter?, who I guess went of the results, although how he came to that figure is a good question....

Weren't yougov the ones who polled a late Labour surge and a hung parliament?

[LittleGrizzly]

I thought it was Survation who pretty much called it in the end?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought it was Survation who pretty much called it in the end?

Nope, Youguv - the guys who usually poll for Torygraph, among others.

~60% is a big rise on the 43% for the last election two years ago.

Metro had a bit on this - apparently Labour DID capture the middle at age 35, and they got the educated vote, but they lost the working class vote and the elderly came out in droves for the Tories.

That suggests three things to me.

1. The "Dementia Tax" worried old people less than it worried the people who actually stood to lose out, their heirs.

2. Fox hunting probably turned off a lot of younger educated people, by which I mean under 40.

3. A lot of it was about Bexit, May's inflexible "Brexit means Brexit" and her insistence we must leave the Single Market with little to no intellectual nuance will have turned off a lot educated people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So old people ruined the UK again.

[Furunculus]

So old people ruined the UK again.

ruined?

[Idaho]

So old people ruined the UK again.

I know a few doctors and nurses at the local hospital. It's full of old people with chronic problems who are always complaining about having to wait, having operations delayed, etc. Ask them how they vote, and every time.. "conservative of course". The mind boggles.

[Sir Moody]

Its not really surprising - having talked too a good many older people who support the Conservatives, most cite the 70's and the union strikes as why - if you can remember a time where the left failed badly you are less likely to give it a second shot.

My parents were also in this group, however they were dyed in the wool Liberal voters rather than Conservative, until this election where they both voted Labour.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So old people ruined the UK again.


I know a few doctors and nurses at the local hospital. It's full of old people with chronic problems who are always complaining about having to wait, having operations delayed, etc. Ask them how they vote, and every time.. "conservative of course". The mind boggles.

It should be noted that, contrary to recent vicious rumours (spread by young people) that old people are not out to "ruin" the UK.

Many of the older generation who voted Brexit did so in order to give their children or grandchildren a better life, because they don't expect to live to see the world get better for them. In this context you can see why the older generation keep voting Conservative, because as bad as things might be right now they've seen them be much worse under Labour. Given that the current Labour top-team were mostly union supporters during the 1970's it's unlikely many working in that period will vote for them because they remember the difference between the rhetoric from that period and reality.

The current generation have the opposite perspective, all they know is disappointment with the Conservatives.

[Beskar]

If Grenfell Tower occurred last week, I think we would be looking at Labour majority. Conservatives have royally screwed up again, and Theresa May turning up for token appearance for cameras and zooming off is a joke. Especially compared to Jeremy Corbyn mingling with the "plebs" as the Tories call them.

[Greyblades]

I'm sorry, are the tories responsible for this fire now?

In what universe would a random disaster swing the election?

[Beskar]

I'm sorry, are the tories responsible for this fire now?

In what universe would a random disaster swing the election?

The fact they were sitting ontop of the report?
The fact the massive amount of tories (Who are landlords) voted down safe housing legislation?
The fact Boris Johnson cut local fire stations?

Not a random disaster, it is brought about by Tory incompetence. Quite a number of them...

[Montmorency]

Why are there so few casualties? What was the occupancy? I understand that there is not even an estimate of the number of missing and the building is still hazardous to be within, but isn't there anything right now differentiating a final toll in the tens, and one in the hundreds (or thousands)?

[Pannonian]

Why are there so few casualties? What was the occupancy? I understand that there is not even an estimate of the number of missing and the building is still hazardous to be within, but isn't there anything right now differentiating a final toll in the tens, and one in the hundreds (or thousands)?

Those are the numbers released so far. Entire families are still missing. It'll be a while before they can put everything together.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The fact they were sitting ontop of the report?
The fact the massive amount of tories (Who are landlords) voted down safe housing legislation?
The fact Boris Johnson cut local fire stations?

Not a random disaster, it is brought about by Tory incompetence. Quite a number of them...

Successive government have sat on this issue since 1999.

There's no legislation in SNP-controlled Scotland or Labour-controlled Wales either.

The major issue appears to have been cladding and the lack of sprinklers - cladding is common throughout the UK and sprinklers do not need to be retroactively fitted anywhere in the UK except as part of major renovations. It seems unlikely that a few more fire stations would have appreciably improved things under those circumstances and in any case Boris had to work with the money he had and the UK is near to broke.

Conclusion - government complacency across Westminster and devolved administrations for over a decade - not specifically a Tory fault.

Hey Beskar, why don't you redirect some of that partisan anti-Tory feeling towards ALL politicians? Including, I might add, recently resigned Tim Farron and soon-to-be-elected leaders Vince Cable.

Hmm?

[LittleGrizzly]

So old people ruined the UK again.

It is a rapidly shrinking demographic, can't help but feel they are trying to sink the ship before they have to hand over the wheel...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is a rapidly shrinking demographic, can't help but feel they are trying to sink the ship before they have to hand over the wheel...

Because that's what you'd do?

Apply basic empathy, Grizzly.

You're old, you might not live to see another election - what motivates you to vote? Self Interest? Is that really likely?

[LittleGrizzly]

Quite frankly considering their voting patterns I can only assume that is why they have voted the way they have done repeatedly. TBH I'd just put it down to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun, although I guess the other side would say exactly the same about my lot.

No worries though, I think with the severe mess they are making of Brexit combined with bias already built up (for good reason) in the younger generations is going to lead to a better Britain in the long run, the Tories are incredibly toxic now for so many people.

[Sarmatian]

Old people are naturally conservative. They want to preserve old values by which they lived most of their life.

Young people are naturally rebellious, they want change and have no patience and they tend to vote liberal, when they do vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Old people are naturally conservative. They want to preserve old values by which they lived most of their life.

Young people are naturally rebellious, they want change and have no patience and they tend to vote liberal, when they do vote.
Isn't it more likely that older people vote to preserve the status quo as a way to minimize risk in their lives? In your twenties, riding out a bad decade is possible if not convenient. In your seventies, your time and energy is much more limited.

[Pannonian]

Isn't it more likely that older people vote to preserve the status quo as a way to minimize risk in their lives? In your twenties, riding out a bad decade is possible if not convenient. In your seventies, your time and energy is much more limited.

Funnily enough, it's the Big C Conservatives who are the radicals. It's Labour who have tended to preserve the status quo state of life.

[Montmorency]

Old people are naturally conservative. They want to preserve old values by which they lived most of their life.

Young people are naturally rebellious, they want change and have no patience and they tend to vote liberal, when they do vote.

This trope does not give us much of the story. I think we find that people who have some political views or orientations, maintain them throughout their lives to a large extent; that rather than a division between young and old, there is a division between eras, decades, or generations (as well as places) - and not in a linear conservative>liberal manner; that political positions which become more acceptable over time in the larger society, such as gay marriage, become more acceptable across most or all age groups, even to similar extents; that popular ideologically-marked criteria at one point in time shift or are replaced by other criteria, including vis-a-vis party identification or actual voting...

This has been commented on a lot in recent years:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Lackey,%20Sara%20Spring%202015.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379413000875
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4347987/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/04/what-shapes-your-political-beliefs-at-18-35-and-50.html

[Pannonian]

This trope does not give us much of the story. I think we find that people who have some political views or orientations, maintain them throughout their lives to a large extent; that rather than a division between young and old, there is a division between eras, decades, or generations (as well as places) - and not in a linear conservative>liberal manner; that political positions which become more acceptable over time in the larger society, such as gay marriage, become more acceptable across most or all age groups, even to similar extents; that popular ideologically-marked criteria at one point in time shift or are replaced by other criteria, including vis-a-vis party identification or actual voting...

This has been commented on a lot in recent years:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Lackey,%20Sara%20Spring%202015.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379413000875
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4347987/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/04/what-shapes-your-political-beliefs-at-18-35-and-50.html

It still amounts to a preponderance of Labour voters in the age groups giving way to a preponderance of Conservative voters in the age groups, with the crossover point in the 35-40 group. Every younger group of 5 or so years is more Labour than its older neighbour, every older group or 5 or so years is more Conservative than its younger neighbour.

[LittleGrizzly]

Been reading a fair bit of conservative reaction to the election, a little bit of enjoying the wailing but also to see how they respond.

As I have seen pointed out a couple of times, people didn't tend to just become conservative just by getting older but acquiring assets over time helped them become more so, I saw someone mentioning home ownership as a factor. Unless the Tories are going to start aiming policies at these middle age groups or these groups suddenly do start enjoying the wealth and home ownerships levels of the older age groups then I don't imagine they are likely to go that much to the right if at all.

I tend to feel there is a base level for each as well with turning large sections becoming difficult without extreme events.

[Montmorency]

It still amounts to a preponderance of Labour voters in the age groups giving way to a preponderance of Conservative voters in the age groups, with the crossover point in the 35-40 group. Every younger group of 5 or so years is more Labour than its older neighbour, every older group or 5 or so years is more Conservative than its younger neighbour.

You're talking about the existing people and relationships. Indeed, those who were born in the 1960s are overall more conservative than those born in the 1990s. This won't tell us much about the beliefs or voting habits in 20 years of those who are millennials now. I.e. the actual people who will become 35-40 in the future are more telling than the fact that they will be 35-40.

As for the UK, the Thatcher Children (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/38664695516495C5A6C08BC656EEAB20/S0007123416000375a.pdf/thatchers_children_blairs_babies_political_socialization_and_trickledown_value_change_an_age_period_ and_cohort_analysis.pdf), those born in the 1960s and 1970s, have tended to be more right-wing than those born in the previous decades, and more likely to vote Conservative. I told you that it isn't a linear progression.




Those in the oldest age group are less likely to agree
with the Thatcherite position on redistribution than the youngest age group, but are more likely
to think poorly of benefit seekers and to want children to be taught to obey authority. The effects
for year of survey show that, with the exception of the inequality item, there are significant
period effects with increasing support for the Thatcherite position in all cases except support for
the death penalty. This suggests that, over a period of twenty or more years, the electorate
indeed became more Thatcherite, particularly with respect to negative attitudes about the
benefits system, the unemployed, benefit recipients and the welfare system more generally.
The coefficients for political generations in the APC models presented in Table 3, in
conjunction with the results from the Wald tests presented in Table 4, show that across eight of
nine indicators, Thatcher’s Children are more right wing and authoritarian than the generation
preceding them (Wilson/Callaghan’s Children). This provides support to Hypothesis 1. Blair’s
Babies are also more right wing and authoritarian than this political generation, confirming that
Thatcherite values were reproduced under New Labour, and become stronger and embedded in
the generation that came of age after Thatcher’s time in office. This is consistent with
Hypothesis 2. Thatcher’s Children and Blair’s Babies are even more right wing economically
than the generation that came of age before the post-war consensus. Blair’s Babies in particular
are almost as negative about benefits and the welfare system as the generation that came of age
before it was created. They are also nearly as authoritarian as the oldest generations, showing
that the trend toward modernization and greater social liberalism was at least slowed down in
Britain under the Thatcher governments.

[Pannonian]

Been reading a fair bit of conservative reaction to the election, a little bit of enjoying the wailing but also to see how they respond.

As I have seen pointed out a couple of times, people didn't tend to just become conservative just by getting older but acquiring assets over time helped them become more so, I saw someone mentioning home ownership as a factor. Unless the Tories are going to start aiming policies at these middle age groups or these groups suddenly do start enjoying the wealth and home ownerships levels of the older age groups then I don't imagine they are likely to go that much to the right if at all.

I tend to feel there is a base level for each as well with turning large sections becoming difficult without extreme events.

The biggest problem in that respect is Brexit. With inflation increasing due to increased costs, and median income decreasing, people who don't bank with the Bank of Mum & Dad are going to get screwed. That is what incenses me about the top end of the Labour leadership, namely Corbyn and McDonnell, who can't see beyond the EU regulations that bar old school nationalisation and other socialist trappings. If median income goes down, all the homilies about socialism mean nothing.

I'm a small c conservative who believes in incremental improvements to life. Make things as stable as possible so that people can plan ahead, then make it possible for them to plan for a better future life. I detest revolution. And Brexit is the biggest revolutionary factor I've seen in my lifetime. I hate Brexit, but especially Lexiteers like Corbyn and McDonnell. At least Rexiteers have coherent worldviews, even if I oppose every single aspect of them.

[Pannonian]

You're talking about the existing people and relationships. Indeed, those who were born in the 1960s are overall more conservative than those born in the 1990s. This won't tell us much about the beliefs or voting habits in 20 years of those who are millennials now. I.e. the actual people who will become 35-40 in the future are more telling than the fact that they will be 35-40.

As for the UK, the Thatcher Children (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/38664695516495C5A6C08BC656EEAB20/S0007123416000375a.pdf/thatchers_children_blairs_babies_political_socialization_and_trickledown_value_change_an_age_period_ and_cohort_analysis.pdf), those born in the 1960s and 1970s, have tended to be more right-wing than those born in the previous decades, and more likely to vote Conservative. I told you that it isn't a linear progression.

That's because it is now 2017. Take another look in 2047. You'll find that the younger age groups tend to vote the Left party, while the older age groups tend to vote Tory, with the crossover in the group who were born in 2007-2012.

[Montmorency]

That's because it is now 2017. Take another look in 2047. You'll find that the younger age groups tend to vote the Left party, while the older age groups tend to vote Tory, with the crossover in the group who were born in 2007-2012.

What's the evidence, as opposed to contemporary youth forming a life-long bent toward Labor and perhaps those being born now forming an early bent toward Conservatives?

[Pannonian]

What's the evidence, as opposed to contemporary youth forming a life-long bent toward Labor and perhaps those being born now forming an early bent toward Conservatives?

Back in the early days of Blair, it was noted that the Conservative Party was extraordinarily elderly, and it was estimated that the Conservative member base would die off within a decade or so. A couple of decades on, the Tories are in government, and the same age group trends noted by Churchill are still there. The trend has been there throughout my lifetime, and goes back before my lifetime. Why should I assume that things are going to be different when the evidence says otherwise?

[Fragony]

Just don't be afraid of total chaos and yo will be fine

[Pannonian]

Just don't be afraid of total chaos

Did you vote UKIP in the last general election? Did your UKIP candidate lose his deposit?

[Fragony]

Did you vote UKIP in the last general election? Did your UKIP candidate lose his deposit?

I can't but would. The EU needs nothing other than being burned

It could work but everybody there must leave

[LittleGrizzly]

Ahh so leaving was a good idea we should have just made sure everyone else in Europe was ready to jump ship at the same time?

Alternatively we'll continue to make a hash of it and force the rest of you even closer together....

[Fragony]

Ahh so leaving was a good idea we should have just made sure everyone else in Europe was ready to jump ship at the same time?

Alternatively we'll continue to make a hash of it and force the rest of you even closer together....
offs Europe is not your terrrotory there is no reason to be in it, all the EU does is restringting trade for a country like the UK, intertnantional trade outside the EU is heavily punshid. The EU is not your friend

[Pannonian]

offs Europe is not your terrrotory there is no reason to be in it, all the EU does is restringting trade for a country like the UK, intertnantional trade outside the EU is heavily punshid. The EU is not your friend

The EU is our market though. I can live without the EU being our friend. I'll have difficulty living without the EU being our market.

[Fragony]

The EU is our market though. I can live without the EU being our friend. I'll have difficulty living without the EU being our market.

Europe really isn't your hub, the UK could never compete. The EU is a horrible thing

[Pannonian]

Europe really isn't your hub, the UK could never compete. The EU is a horrible thing

50% of our exports go there. It's the nearest coherent market, with attending lower transportation costs. Do you recommend we teleport our goods to the other side of the planet instead? At least that would be a positive recommendation, unlike everything else you've said on the subject.

[Pannonian]

It may seem insensitively timed, but I hope that, even if we do leave the EU in its entirety, with part of the argument being to free up UK businesses from red tape and regulations, we will still regulate our services according to the higher standards, whether it be EU or UK legislated.

[Fragony]

50% of our exports go there. It's the nearest coherent market, with attending lower transportation costs. Do you recommend we teleport our goods to the other side of the planet instead? At least that would be a positive recommendation, unlike everything else you've said on the subject.

That market isn't going to disapear just because you guys hurted some ego's. You don't seem to understand that you have the best cards and eurocrates are scared because it's going to become obvious that they are of no use whatsoever, everything worked fine and they know that

[Pannonian]

That market isn't going to disapear just because you guys hurted some ego's. You don't seem to understand that you have the best cards and eurocrates are scared because it's going to become obvious that they are of no use whatsoever, everything worked fine and they know that

Thus says someone living a world away in Dutchland. Meanwhile, I live in the UK, where I shop on the high street and see prices going noticeably up. When are you moving over here to share the wonderful extra-EU experience of the brave British?

[Fragony]

Thus says someone living a world away in Dutchland. Meanwhile, I live in the UK, where I shop on the high street and see prices going noticeably up. When are you moving over here to share the wonderful extra-EU experience of the brave British?

You don't have to actually pay that it'sl bluff that you must

[Sir Moody]

You don't have to actually pay that it'sl bluff that you must

we do if we want a trade agreement - this idea we can not pay at least something and still find Europe receptive to a trade agreement is a poor joke...

[Husar]

You're old, you might not live to see another election - what motivates you to vote? Self Interest? Is that really likely?

Older people can become very selfish, begin to think up more and more entitlements and things the rest of society owes them etc.
So quite likely, yes. Trying to sink the ship may go a bit far, but they may want to make the best of the years they have left and not even make the connection to the future of their children. Don't fall for the romanticized image of the wise old Hollywood grandpa. There may be some of them around, but that ain't make them a majority.

[Greyblades]

I really am scratching my head how any of you are able to ascertain the motivations of the elderly, selfish or otherwise.

[LittleGrizzly]

we do if we want a trade agreement - this idea we can not pay at least something and still find Europe receptive to a trade agreement is a poor joke...

I think the general idea is to have the British national anthem roaring in the background whilst footage of the battle of Britain plays on a large screen, then Churchill's voice booms out declaring that we will fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the fields and in the streets, we shall never surrender!

Presumably at this point Johnny Foreigner would back down and cede to our demands.

[Husar]

I really am scratching my head how any of you are able to ascertain the motivations of the elderly, selfish or otherwise.

Maybe one day you will learn.

[Greyblades]

Montmorency: My apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been feeling drained recently and have been putting the more challenging subjects aside until I felt I was in a better mindset to approach them. I have been doing that a lot recently and it shames me to admit I have allowed some to be forgotten.


You conceive of political power only in terms of ability to pass a given piece of legislation through a legislature in the near-term, which misunderstands power in democracies. The existence and size of opposition parties limits the actions the governing Party can take, because this isn't about what someone "lets" anyone else have or do. Parliament is not about turn-taking. Parliament is a political institution dependent on the electorate and not a machine for churning out legislature that one actor can hold and wield in denial of others. Every action must run in some way through the approval and vetting of minority parties, to the extent that the less minority support a course of action or legislation has, the more of its power the majority or governing group must expend to secure it - and governments do not have unlimited quantities of this power, either in sheer extent or in some duration of time. Hence, priorities and expedience, i.e. politics.

Yes they can take indirect actions that can disrupt the 51% block's cohesion or posture to increase their chances of growing into the next 51% block, but that is all a minority party is able to do. A minority party that cannot disrupt the majority block and build it's own block it is powerless no matter if it's size is 1% or 49%- that combined by my belief that labour is one of these powerless is my point.


When you note something like

you have to grasp that this is the basis for your political system, it's the expectation and what all the participants are organized about. If it were not the case, all governments would translate to one-party states.

Insert a "meet the new boss same as the old boss" joke about the state of american and british politics here.

Multi party democracies are fully capable of being dominated by a single party for periods of time; it is the possibility of regime change in election that defines a multi party democracy from single party, there is no required inevitability of such change.


You took it that Corbyn's bad leadership is directly responsible for Labor's lack of a majority in this election. Corbyn could well be a bad leader, or even an acceptable but otherwise inconvenient leader, but you didn't have license to associate leadership from Corbyn, poor or otherwise, with overall election results. At least some of the issue is related to a fundamental misunderstanding, a zero-sum one, of how democracies work, which led you to perceive the election outcome for Labor as a bad one in the first place. What do you make of the proposition that it is categorically impossible for a party like the Liberal Democrats to not have bad leadership?

Why would it be impossible?

Just because I blame Labour's lack of success in this election on Jeremy Corbyn does not mean I believe success is impossible without good leadership, an idea that is completely untenable when considering the performance of the conservatives.

My assertions in this causality is not produced from thin air, merely that I have not presented the reasons in my recent posts. I would not be averse to discussing what brings me to the conclusion, in a time when I am not as time constrained my internet access as I am now.


Maybe one day you will learn. What is there some sort of mass telepathy granting second puberty that occurs when you reach thirty I have been kept in the dark about until now?

[Montmorency]

Back in the early days of Blair, it was noted that the Conservative Party was extraordinarily elderly, and it was estimated that the Conservative member base would die off within a decade or so. A couple of decades on, the Tories are in government, and the same age group trends noted by Churchill are still there. The trend has been there throughout my lifetime, and goes back before my lifetime. Why should I assume that things are going to be different when the evidence says otherwise?

The point being that this isn't the correct trend to notice; even its impression extends only to the past several generations and may be better explained as a function than as a pure function of aging.

For instance (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974?language_content_entity=en-uk), in 1979, 1983, and 1987 the Conservative ascendancy saw 18-34 voters favor Tories over Labor in their proportion of the vote This only flipped under Blair, and that's when Labor had a huge lead among youth. This lead then disappeared in 2010. So while Tory biases at various times are larger in older groups, and Labor biases smaller, much of the results we see can be better linked to period-specific political circumstances and generational (as opposed to age) differences.

What you need to do to get a better grip on the relationship of age to politics is to compare generations rather than age brackets at one point in time. How do political beliefs and voting habits of those born in the 1930s and 1940s compare to those born in the 50s, then the 60s and 70s... and how do these change over time within that cohort, all of that. If one cohort is simply more left-oriented than their immediate successors and always have been, as seems to be the case for the oldest voting bloc in the UK, then we should look beyond some kind of 'senescence turning point' on a spectrum. That's not to say that absolute aging can't have an effect on political attitudes, but that this has to be supported and contextualized and not merely assumed as is commonly done.

[Montmorency]

Greyblades, what both majority and minority parties do beyond passing legislation is develop policies with their interest groups and target demographics, bargain individually and corporately with their opponents, and work locally or behind the scenes to prime the electorate for the next contest. Parties are actively engaged in governing even if they don't on paper have the front seat (unless they are just very small). Democracies are set up exactly to prevent minority groups (parties here) from being powerless, although different setups can grant more or less power.

Single-party rule in a democracy in itself weakens other parties because they do not have the chance to develop national infrastructure to a meaningful extent, and because there is less leverage with which to modify the ruling party's agenda. Look at the slippery-banana-peel performance of Japan's DPJ 2008-2012, to the point that the whole party in recent years had to be dissolved/merged (yet again) with others to maintain an opposition to the classic LDP hegemony over postwar Japan. A similar effect exists with very small or niche parties, in connection with the first paragraph. As an aside, parties like DUP are a weird kind of exception because they have otherwise been empowered, status quo parties in their own right.

I'm only saying here that it is incorrect to characterize a non-majority result as an unqualifiable failure for a party. Parties play for keeps, or they disappear.

[Beskar]

Hey Beskar, why don't you redirect some of that partisan anti-Tory feeling towards ALL politicians? Including, I might add, recently resigned Tim Farron and soon-to-be-elected leaders Vince Cable.

Hmm?

Well, I would, but unfortunately the Lib Dems are too busy burying themselves within their own grave...

Tim Farron disappointed me in Brexit and the General Election. To be fair, it could be the Media bias against the Lib Dems which makes them virtually invisible to the public eye and UKIP very visible with no MPs.

As for his Christian beliefs and progressive party nonsense, that was irritating. There is a fundamental difference between the Church and the Secular State. If he felt Homosexuality was a sin, he can say "According to my faith, sodomy is a sin. However, I don't deprive people the choice to engage in activities more in line with their own separate views and belief systems." There, problem solved. He would have nothing to justify to the creator either because it says "Judge others like you would like to be judged yourself", ie be judged and ruled fairly.

[Pannonian]

May makes for some gruesome watching. It's almost as though there's a manual for how to be a prime minister, with counterpoints of what not to do, and she's following every one of the latter points.

[Beskar]

Theresa May chased from church as angry crowd brands Prime Minister a 'coward'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/theresa-may-chased-church-angry-crowd-brands-prime-minister/

Prime Minister sneaking outside the back, avoiding the plebs, as they brand her a coward as she throws the entire London met police between her and the car, all 5 of them (after cuts) as she makes her escape.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I would, but unfortunately the Lib Dems are too busy burying themselves within their own grave...

Tim Farron disappointed me in Brexit and the General Election. To be fair, it could be the Media bias against the Lib Dems which makes them virtually invisible to the public eye and UKIP very visible with no MPs.

As for his Christian beliefs and progressive party nonsense, that was irritating. There is a fundamental difference between the Church and the Secular State. If he felt Homosexuality was a sin, he can say "According to my faith, sodomy is a sin. However, I don't deprive people the choice to engage in activities more in line with their own separate views and belief systems." There, problem solved. He would have nothing to justify to the creator either because it says "Judge others like you would like to be judged yourself", ie be judged and ruled fairly.

Actually, it's "judge not, lest ye be judged."

I.e. you are not entitled to make moral judgements, because judged by the same standards you apply to others you will doubtless me found wanting.

In any case, in the UK there is no clear division between Church and State - we live in a sort of "soft Theocracy".

Maybe it was the need to apply moral judgement to others that got him down. He wasn't all that impressive anyway, and now Clegg is out of Parliament Cable will be next up, which means Lib Dems lurching to the Left and cuddling up to Corbyn's Labour.

[Pannonian]

Actually, it's "judge not, lest ye be judged."

I.e. you are not entitled to make moral judgements, because judged by the same standards you apply to others you will doubtless me found wanting.

In any case, in the UK there is no clear division between Church and State - we live in a sort of "soft Theocracy".

Maybe it was the need to apply moral judgement to others that got him down. He wasn't all that impressive anyway, and now Clegg is out of Parliament Cable will be next up, which means Lib Dems lurching to the Left and cuddling up to Corbyn's Labour.

The judgement comes from the media and especially the press, a relic of the days when people genuinely cared about character, as opposed to pretending that they do. There is no substantial way in which the CofE or religion in general affects everyday life, barring perhaps the shorter and limited working day on Sunday (nowadays a break from work rather than a religiously observed sabbath)

[a completely inoffensive name]

STRONG AND STABLE


https://youtu.be/ftY1NlPk5YY

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Theresa May chased from church as angry crowd brands Prime Minister a 'coward'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/theresa-may-chased-church-angry-crowd-brands-prime-minister/

Prime Minister sneaking outside the back, avoiding the plebs, as they brand her a coward as she throws the entire London met police between her and the car, all 5 of them (after cuts) as she makes her escape.

Oh, really?

So they didn't look like they were trying to rip her apart? Then?

Except they did, didn't they?

[Montmorency]

Oh, really?

So they didn't look like they were trying to rip her apart? Then?

Except they did, didn't they?

security concerns

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given the vicious nature of the crowd her Police escort would have insisted she be extracted - not least given the recent terrorist attacks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Given the vicious nature of the crowd her Police escort would have insisted she be extracted - not least given the recent terrorist attacks.

It's not good optics. In her position, she might as well have risked it.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cft52h89roU

[Pannonian]

Bugger Jonathan Pie.

[Beskar]

Bugger Jonathan Pie.

Too much dose of raw truth?

[Pannonian]

Too much dose of raw truth?

What is he? What is he an expert on? Why should I listen to what he's saying?

[Beskar]

What is he? What is he an expert on? Why should I listen to what he's saying?

He is a comedian who examines current affairs and puts it through a lens outraged reporter. "telling it as it is". Not only are the points publicised but overshadowed, he delivers them in a raw way which speaks to straight to people without the pomp and fluff. If you are not wanting to listen to anything he says, might as well cover your eyes and ears and just avoid 99.9% of all places which discusses politics.

[Pannonian]

He is a comedian who examines current affairs and puts it through a lens outraged reporter. "telling it as it is". Not only are the points publicised but overshadowed, he delivers them in a raw way which speaks to straight to people without the pomp and fluff. If you are not wanting to listen to anything he says, might as well cover your eyes and ears and just avoid 99.9% of all places which discusses politics.

A comedian "telling it as it is" through a character. How is he any better than his right wing equivalent who continually rails against PC.

Back in the day, there was Rory Bremner, who was absolutely superb at looking at politics through different personas. I didn't rely on him to form my politics either. If you want to learn about politics via comedy, try Yes (Prime) Minister, which was sourced via high ups in political circles.

[Beskar]

Back in the day, there was Rory Bremner, who was absolutely superb at looking at politics through different personas. I didn't rely on him to form my politics either. If you want to learn about politics via comedy, try Yes (Prime) Minister, which was sourced via high ups in political circles.

I own the boxset, and despite your claim, I don't rely on him to form my opinions, they are just more typically aligned with my already existing opinion. If you look back in this thread, I already made comments to which he later said in the video and I doubt he uses me as source material.

[Pannonian]

I own the boxset, and despite your claim, I don't rely on him to form my opinions, they are just more typically aligned with my already existing opinion. If you look back in this thread, I already made comments to which he later said in the video and I doubt he uses me as source material.

So you like watching him because he confirms your biases. Echo in other words. Have you ever learned anything from watching him, that you didn't already know?

[Beskar]

So you like watching him because he confirms your biases. Echo in other words. Have you ever learned anything from watching him, that you didn't already know?

I watch and listen to a lot of things, not all I agree with.

As for political sitcoms, ever watched The Newsstateman? I used to be a big fan when I was younger, even got to watch Rik Mayall perform live. Though in that version, he spoofed New Labour (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/20/media.media), you would have loved that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Older people can become very selfish, begin to think up more and more entitlements and things the rest of society owes them etc.
So quite likely, yes. Trying to sink the ship may go a bit far, but they may want to make the best of the years they have left and not even make the connection to the future of their children. Don't fall for the romanticized image of the wise old Hollywood grandpa. There may be some of them around, but that ain't make them a majority.

This can be the case with the old and senile - it is not the case with anyone of that age group I have met who retains their faculties. This includes, in addition to many family friends, my parents and by aunts and uncles. My family is quite intellectual and we discuss politics frequently so I can tell your their opinions with some confidence.

With regard to Corbyn specifically, I can tell you my elders see hims as anything from a dangerous revolutionary making common cause with the IRA to "useful idiot" terrorists have used to grant themselves legitimacy.

My personnal experience of this age group is that they become more inflexible and sometimes cynical as they age, but they do not become selfish or cruel. If your experience of your own family is different then I apologise.


He is a comedian who examines current affairs and puts it through a lens outraged reporter. "telling it as it is". Not only are the points publicised but overshadowed, he delivers them in a raw way which speaks to straight to people without the pomp and fluff. If you are not wanting to listen to anything he says, might as well cover your eyes and ears and just avoid 99.9% of all places which discusses politics.

He's putting forth a caricature, one that (among other things) blames the sitting government for everything when, as noted, this is a problem in the "Liberal" parties that control th devolved administrations too - and the problem is apathy (and lack of funds).

[Montmorency]

He's putting forth a caricature, one that (among other things) blames the sitting government for everything when, as noted, this is a problem in the "Liberal" parties that control th devolved administrations too - and the problem is apathy (and lack of funds).

Then again, Kensington has been a Conservative/Lib-Dem district for the past generation.

[Pannonian]

I watch and listen to a lot of things, not all I agree with.

As for political sitcoms, ever watched The Newsstateman? I used to be a big fan when I was younger, even got to watch Rik Mayall perform live. Though in that version, he spoofed New Labour (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/20/media.media), you would have loved that.

I saw the original, just as I saw the original Red Dwarf. And like the revived Red Dwarf, I didn't watch the new New Statesman. I caught Blackadder Back & Forth, but that only confirmed by view that revived comedies are nowhere near as good as the originals. Brass Eye wasn't as good as The Day Today either.

[Pannonian]

This can be the case with the old and senile - it is not the case with anyone of that age group I have met who retains their faculties. This includes, in addition to many family friends, my parents and by aunts and uncles. My family is quite intellectual and we discuss politics frequently so I can tell your their opinions with some confidence.

With regard to Corbyn specifically, I can tell you my elders see hims as anything from a dangerous revolutionary making common cause with the IRA to "useful idiot" terrorists have used to grant themselves legitimacy.

My personnal experience of this age group is that they become more inflexible and sometimes cynical as they age, but they do not become selfish or cruel. If your experience of your own family is different then I apologise.

He's putting forth a caricature, one that (among other things) blames the sitting government for everything when, as noted, this is a problem in the "Liberal" parties that control th devolved administrations too - and the problem is apathy (and lack of funds).

It's the modus operandi of someone who's never had to make things work, but is only interested in pointing out that things don't work. That's why I hate idiots who parrot the HIGNFY method of dismissing someone or something with a one liner, often in the form "Is this the same xxx who did xxx once upon a time?" If someone who properly knows the subject and what these telltale signs mean points it out, then I'll bow to their judgement. But some wannabe comedian? I don't think so.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then again, Kensington has been a Conservative/Lib-Dem district for the past generation.

Cladding buildings was a Labour policy, designed to reduce heating bills for the poor and elderly.

[Montmorency]

Cladding buildings was a Labour policy, designed to reduce heating bills for the poor and elderly.

The potential issue here seems to be the specific form of cladding used (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond), since AFAIK most if not all buildings use cladding of some sort.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The potential issue here seems to be the specific form of cladding used (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/18/cladding-on-grenfell-tower-banned-in-uk-says-philip-hammond), since AFAIK most if not all buildings use cladding of some sort.

In the UK most buildings use cavity insulation. Cladding is used to retrofit older buildings, it was a big thing under Blair and Brown especially.

[Montmorency]

Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/warnings-deathtrap-high-rise-building-cladding-ignored-decades/) on the various reports and complaints made about the structure and fire risk over past two decades.


There is growing evidence that the rush by private firms to fulfill council contracts as cheaply as possible led to less expensive cladding being used that was not as fire resistant.

The Reynobond cladding fixed to the Grenfell tower last year was made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.

On Friday Worcester based firm Omnis Exteriors said it had been asked to supply cheaper cladding to the installer, Harley Facades, which did not meet strict fire-retardant specifications.

The safer sheets were only £2 a square metre more expensive meaning that for an extra £5,000 the building could have been encased in a material which may have resisted the fire for longer. The cheaper version is banned from use on tall buildings in the US and Germany.



In the UK most buildings use cavity insulation.

So, internal vs. external cladding.


Cladding is used to retrofit older buildings, it was a big thing under Blair and Brown especially.

Is it a problem then with the policy, or with local implementation (Tory-led or otherwise)? Point out some references on the policies in question.

At any rate, the current populist position is that the recent cladding was installed as an aesthetic feature rather than as a purely infrastructural one.

Meanwhile, here's an op-ed (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/lessons-grenfell-tower-safer-cladding-tower-blocks) declaiming against high-rises in concept as anti-social and un-ergonomic compared to low-rises. Can't we just have a Brutalist renaissance in flats?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/17/warnings-deathtrap-high-rise-building-cladding-ignored-decades/) on the various reports and complaints made about the structure and fire risk over past two decades.

So, internal vs. external cladding.

Is it a problem then with the policy, or with local implementation (Tory-led or otherwise)? Point out some references on the policies in question.

At any rate, the current populist position is that the recent cladding was installed as an aesthetic feature rather than as a purely infrastructural one.

Meanwhile, here's an op-ed (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/lessons-grenfell-tower-safer-cladding-tower-blocks) declaiming against high-rises in concept as anti-social and un-ergonomic compared to low-rises. Can't we just have a Brutalist renaissance in flats?

High Rises are definitely evil.

In the UK the wall cavities are usually filled with soft lagging, not solid panels such as those used on the high rise. On older buildings it might be internal with plasterboard over the top, in newer buildings it'll actually be between two layers of bricks or concrete.

I would say that the cladding on the building was intended to be both insulation and aesthetic. The idea being to make the building look less tired for the residents as well as everyone else. Like everything local government does, though, it was done too cheaply.

[Beskar]

Theresa May is being escorted away from the public, due to "safety concerns" as PFH put it, whilst Jeremy Corbyn is at Glastonbury, receiving an encore of cheers and chanting praising him.

There is definitely a big difference between the two leaders.

[Pannonian]

Theresa May is being escorted away from the public, due to "safety concerns" as PFH put it, whilst Jeremy Corbyn is at Glastonbury, receiving an encore of cheers and chanting praising him.

There is definitely a big difference between the two leaders.

One of them lives in 10 Downing Street, the other one doesn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Theresa May is being escorted away from the public, due to "safety concerns" as PFH put it, whilst Jeremy Corbyn is at Glastonbury, receiving an encore of cheers and chanting praising him.

There is definitely a big difference between the two leaders.

A sad indictment of the state of British politics and the ignorance which media outlets have fostered among the masses.

It just occurred to me that Corbyn is a Hipster's politicians. They think he's new and fresh because they're too young to remember the period he's harking back to.

[Pannonian]

A sad indictment of the state of British politics and the ignorance which media outlets have fostered among the masses.

It just occurred to me that Corbyn is a Hipster's politicians. They think he's new and fresh because they're too young to remember the period he's harking back to.

I've posted links to The Wilderness Years before. Onscreen accounts from every Labour leader from the last 40 years (with the exception of John Smith, who was dead). Widely recognised by politicians and politicos of all colours as one of the best documentaries on politics ever made, it was dismissed here as "a video". And then you have Beskar posting videos of Jonathan Pie, a comedian speaking via a persona, and claiming that it's "the raw truth". Michael Gove may be a :daisy:, but he was speaking the truth when he said that Britons have had enough of experts.

[rory_20_uk]

Theresa May is being escorted away from the public, due to "safety concerns" as PFH put it, whilst Jeremy Corbyn is at Glastonbury, receiving an encore of cheers and chanting praising him.

There is definitely a big difference between the two leaders.

Corbyn is doing what he loves - basking in the adulation of believers, criticising others whilst doing sweet FA: he can be hugging people and attending pop concerts because he is not running a country. Any policies involving money aren't based in reality - upping money to everyone with increased wages (why stop at a minimum wage of £10 an hour? Why not £20?) As if the crippling inflation of the 1970's was a good thing. Proof? Evidence? Basic viability? Pah, you right wing plant!

I don't particularly like May. She seems to be a rather robotic person with few drives beyond being in power. But then how does that differ from most other politicians?

And local politicians appear to be if anything worse - any powers facets that they have been tasked with often fail scrutiny which is why the Government is so keen to have none.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I've posted links to The Wilderness Years before. Onscreen accounts from every Labour leader from the last 40 years (with the exception of John Smith, who was dead). Widely recognised by politicians and politicos of all colours as one of the best documentaries on politics ever made, it was dismissed here as "a video". And then you have Beskar posting videos of Jonathan Pie, a comedian speaking via a persona, and claiming that it's "the raw truth". Michael Gove may be a :daisy:, but he was speaking the truth when he said that Britons have had enough of experts.

If you put it like that, you can make anything sound bad. Let me do the same.

Pannanion likes to point to opinions of two-bit politico's who comment that Corbyn smells funny and must be stopped at any cost, because they dislike having a bit of democratic socialism in the democratic socialist party, calling it unelectable and fails to understand why the membership wants him as its leader. He likes to call anything giving anti-Corbyn opinion as 'primary sources' and 'experts', but when a political comedian calls out on a current government policy of putting a veneer over poverty with these flammable cladding, he calls it dumb and dismisses it even though it is a current national scandal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40391395) which he described plainly and bluntly because his copy of the Daily Mail had a new article where they drew Corbyn supporters as the IRA. So whilst Orwell in Animal Farm warns of sheep bleating, Pannanion prefers like them to defer to toe the line the pigs give and not think for himself.

I am sure you feel the above might come across as an unfair representation, so don't do it yourself.

[Pannonian]

If you put it like that, you can make anything sound bad. Let me do the same.

Pannanion likes to point to opinions of two-bit politico's who comment that Corbyn smells funny and must be stopped at any cost, because they dislike having a bit of democratic socialism in the democratic socialist party, calling it unelectable and fails to understand why the membership wants him as its leader. He likes to call anything giving anti-Corbyn opinion as 'primary sources' and 'experts', but when a political comedian calls out on a current government policy of putting a veneer over poverty with these flammable cladding, he calls it dumb and dismisses it even though it is a current national scandal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40391395) which he described plainly and bluntly because his copy of the Daily Mail had a new article where they drew Corbyn supporters as the IRA. So whilst Orwell in Animal Farm warns of sheep bleating, Pannanion prefers like them to defer to toe the line the pigs give and not think for himself.

I am sure you feel the above might come across as an unfair representation, so don't do it yourself.

I pointed towards a documentary that's practically universally highly regarded by people who have made a career of politics or studied politics. The documentary featured people talking to the camera and explaining themselves and their actions. Here are some of the talking heads from that documentary.

Jim Callaghan (Labour leader 1976-1980, PM 1976-79)
Michael Foot (Labour leader 1980-1983)
Neil Kinnock (Labour leader 1983-1992)
Tony Blair (Labour leader 1994-2007, PM 1997-2007)
Gordon Brown (Labour leader 2007-2010, PM 2007-2010)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader 2015-)

Going beyond leaders of the Labour party, here are some of the other talking heads (that I can remember).

Roy Hattersley
Denis Healey
Tony Benn
Gerald Kaufman

Note the difference in calibre between the above and Jonathan Pie, whom you regard as some kind of authority on politics. Actually, I'll have another skim through the first episode and list a few more names.

Peter Shore
Michael Meacher
Joe Ashton
Tony Banks
Roy Jenkins
Shirley Williams
David Owen
Chris Mullin
Jack Straw
Mike Thomas

If you don't recognise any of the names, add MP as a suffix.

And in comparison,

If you put it like that, you can make anything sound bad. Let me do the same.

Pannanion likes to point to opinions of two-bit politico's who comment that Corbyn smells funny and must be stopped at any cost, because they dislike having a bit of democratic socialism in the democratic socialist party, calling it unelectable and fails to understand why the membership wants him as its leader. He likes to call anything giving anti-Corbyn opinion as 'primary sources' and 'experts', but when a political comedian calls out on a current government policy of putting a veneer over poverty with these flammable cladding, he calls it dumb and dismisses it even though it is a current national scandal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40391395) which he described plainly and bluntly because his copy of the Daily Mail had a new article where they drew Corbyn supporters as the IRA. So whilst Orwell in Animal Farm warns of sheep bleating, Pannanion prefers like them to defer to toe the line the pigs give and not think for himself.

I am sure you feel the above might come across as an unfair representation, so don't do it yourself.

I'm sure Paul Merton is topical too. I don't regard him as an authority on politics and government though.

[Beskar]

I will reply properly when I can. But I do have a question, I remember your documentary but I don't remember anyone dismissing it or voicing anything against it?

I do remember a incident where you referenced an MP who talked about Corbyn thugs barging into offices and intimidating people. This incident has also been investigated since by the Speaker of the House and it was discovered that the person in question was talking a huge pile of cow platter as they were just trying to use the media to smear Corbyn and those who work for him. I remember Idaho calling the source out on that one and linked to a reporters article on it and you told him his source was bad as she is an MP and a 'primary source' whilst he just linked to a reporter.

On work break and on phone, but Google should be able to provide the names and details of the incident for review.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-seema-malhotra-john-mcdonnell-john-bercow-broke-into-invaded-office-a7156991.html

[Beskar]

Where have you Theresa May supporters seemingly disappeared to? I thought you would be over the moon to find out that Theresa May actually found a money tree and is spending over £billion for the Government to become "Strong and Stable".

£100millin per vote, what a steal!

[Idaho]

Tories like winners. They liked may when they thought she would win. Now they pretend they never liked her.

Meanwhile the latest social attitudes survey results:

61% of people think it is wrong for benefit claimants to use legal loopholes to increase their payments,compared with 48% who think it is wrong to use legal loopholes to pay less tax.
The view that it was acceptable to use legal loopholes to pay less tax was most strongly felt among people who were better off.

Tories... Loss aversion and self interest.

Of course offering tax breaks to wealthy people and encouraging old white people to vote with scare stories of waves of immigration is democracy. Whereas offering improvements in pay and public services and encouraging young people and ethnic minority groups to vote is cynical bribery and undemocratic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where have you Theresa May supporters seemingly disappeared to? I thought you would be over the moon to find out that Theresa May actually found a money tree and is spending over £billion for the Government to become "Strong and Stable".

£100millin per vote, what a steal!

Someone observed the other day that, given that there are about 10 Conservative MP's in Devon-and-Cornwall we could also hold the government to ransom as this area is always under-funded.

It should also be pointed out that Theresa May was never popular, she was however seen as competent.

Her miss-handling of the election campaign destroyed any real belief in her competency.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tories like winners. They liked may when they thought she would win. Now they pretend they never liked her.

Corbyn awfully popular on the Opposition benches now, isn't he? People clambering over themselves to apologise and ask for a seat on his Front Bench.

Political parties need to win elections - they will always support a leader they think will win.

[Idaho]

Corbyn awfully popular on the Opposition benches now, isn't he? People clambering over themselves to apologise and ask for a seat on his Front Bench.

Political parties need to win elections - they will always support a leader they think will win.

If I was Corbyn, I would enact an old skool purge of the blairites. Well at least get a few of them deselected and have the rest kiss the sword.

[Beskar]

Someone observed the other day that, given that there are about 10 Conservative MP's in Devon-and-Cornwall we could also hold the government to ransom as this area is always under-funded..

Then do advise your MPs to do it and not to be taken for granted. Devon and Cornwall are within the Union too.

If I was being honest, Theresa May should have tried to reach out to the opposition, such as Labour, in attempt to craft compromises on policies rather trying to ramrod them through Parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I was Corbyn, I would enact an old skool purge of the blairites. Well at least get a few of them deselected and have the rest kiss the sword.

Isn't that just a bit, well, Stalinist?


Then do advise your MPs to do it and not to be taken for granted. Devon and Cornwall are within the Union too.

If I was being honest, Theresa May should have tried to reach out to the opposition, such as Labour, in attempt to craft compromises on policies rather trying to ramrod them through Parliament.

Strangely enough, this was suggested by a Labour supporter.

The thought of such "Pork Barrel" politics in the UK horrifies me though.

And you're wrong, we're not part of the Union - we're part of England - and so is Cornwall whether they like it or not.

[Pannonian]

If I was Corbyn, I would enact an old skool purge of the blairites. Well at least get a few of them deselected and have the rest kiss the sword.

Have you watched The Wilderness Years yet? Corbyn is in it.

[Beskar]

And you're wrong, we're not part of the Union - we're part of England - and so is Cornwall whether they like it or not.

That is like me saying "We are posting on The Org" and you turn around saying "you're wrong, we're not part of The Org - we're part of the Backroom".

[Pannonian]

And Corbyn has confirmed and asserted his hard Brexit position, sacking a number of shadow ministers who voted in favour of an amendment demanding a soft Brexit.

[rory_20_uk]

And Corbyn has confirmed and asserted his hard Brexit position, sacking a number of shadow ministers who voted in favour of an amendment demanding a soft Brexit.

Good. It'd be nice to act like a sovereign state rather than a unit of land vying for more money.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is like me saying "We are posting on The Org" and you turn around saying "you're wrong, we're not part of The Org - we're part of the Backroom".

No, because the Org is a Unitary Website.

Ireland is a different country to England, the Union is of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To describe Devon-and-Cornwall as "part of the Union" is to make a category error.

I will not condone harm to the common weel for narrow regional reasons.

[Montmorency]

No, because the Org is a Unitary Website.

Ireland is a different country to England, the Union is of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To describe Devon-and-Cornwall as "part of the Union" is to make a category error.

I will not condone harm to the common weel for narrow regional reasons.

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

Cornwall was part of Wessex before England existed, then Wessex became England, then England was united with Wales, then Scotland was united with those two, then Ireland was united with Great Britain.

Cornwall is, therefore, not a constituent part of the "United Kingdom" and to describe it as such is a classification error.

[Pannonian]

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

Cornwall has been part of England before there was even an England. The last time it had a semi-separate identity was when England was still proto-England. By the time of Alfred, it had already been folded into the English realm. The last time Cornwall had a recognisably separate scope was when the Saxons were still the Saxons, and the Britons were still the Britons, holed up in Dumnonia and the lands of the Cymru. If you want to talk about Cornwall having a legal status inside the Union, you might as well talk about the legal status of the Saxon Coasts as well, as that's the last time they were separate.

[Montmorency]

Cornwall was part of Wessex before England existed, then Wessex became England, then England was united with Wales, then Scotland was united with those two, then Ireland was united with Great Britain.

Cornwall is, therefore, not a constituent part of the "United Kingdom" and to describe it as such is a classification error.

Doesn't address my question. I would say that while Cornwall is not a constituent of the Treaty of Union, it is a constituent of one of the constituents of the Treaty of Union, and so as a subset of that constituent is indeed "a part of" (or similar designation) the UK. Just as both the city of New York and the State of New York are part of the United States, even though New York City is neither a founding member nor a state member at all.

[Montmorency]

Cornwall has been part of England before there was even an England. The last time it had a semi-separate identity was when England was still proto-England. By the time of Alfred, it had already been folded into the English realm. The last time Cornwall had a recognisably separate scope was when the Saxons were still the Saxons, and the Britons were still the Britons, holed up in Dumnonia and the lands of the Cymru. If you want to talk about Cornwall having a legal status inside the Union, you might as well talk about the legal status of the Saxon Coasts as well, as that's the last time they were separate.

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

[Pannonian]

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

Start by discussing things in the correct language. The last time Cornwall was a separate entity, what we call England was split up into a number of kingdoms, with each king barely ruling what we would now term a county. The Union was a union between two states, England and Scotland. By that point, Cornwall had not been an independent entity for a thousand years. Cornwall only has a separate geographical status for administrative reasons. As a realm, which predates what you might recognise as a state, it is inseparable from "England". Start by recognising that not all the world fits into American conceptions of states, laws and rights.

Do we talk about the legal status of Islington North within the Union? No, because Islington North is part of England, and only exists as an entity for administrative reasons.

[Montmorency]

it is inseparable from "England".

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

[Pannonian]

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

So why are you trying to talk about Cornwall's legal status instead of England's legal status? That is, apart from trying to be a smart arse.

[Montmorency]

So why are you trying to talk about Cornwall's legal status instead of England's legal status? That is, apart from trying to be a smart arse.

I'm not talking about legal status. PVC took issue with some semantics in Beskar's post, and I disputed his interpretation.

I hope you don't think I'm saying Cornwall should secede or whatever it is that concerns you. So yes, we're being smart-arses.

[Beskar]

By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't address my question. I would say that while Cornwall is not a constituent of the Treaty of Union, it is a constituent of one of the constituents of the Treaty of Union, and so as a subset of that constituent is indeed "a part of" (or similar designation) the UK. Just as both the city of New York and the State of New York are part of the United States, even though New York City is neither a founding member nor a state member at all.

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.


Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.


So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.


I'm not talking about legal status. PVC took issue with some semantics in Beskar's post, and I disputed his interpretation.

I hope you don't think I'm saying Cornwall should secede or whatever it is that concerns you. So yes, we're being smart-arses.

In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".


By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

[Montmorency]

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.



London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.



It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.



In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".



Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

[Sarmatian]

And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

[Pannonian]

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

How is Cornwall's legal status separate from that of England? Cornwall has been part of England since before there was any question of any kind of legal status, back in the days when we talked about "authority", not "status". Back in the days when local rulers raised forces to support a High King because the latter was strong enough to organise them against an outside threat.


And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand. At least my Anglocentrism is based on my acknowledgement that there are many things I don't fully understand, and I try to understand it through my imperfect prism. Like I said, MM might as well talk about the legal status of Islington North within the Union. That too exists for administrative purposes, and might well be dissolved when administrative reasons demand it.

[Idaho]

Wow. Some burning issues going down. Cornish secession. Lol

[Pannonian]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

[Idaho]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

I have a whole list of issues with the EU. It's undemocratic, it's neo liberal, it's corrupt, etc. However brexit as it stands its ridiculous. Its like complaining that your landlord is bad and your house has a load of problems - so you are going to move out and sleep in the park.

[Pannonian]

I have a whole list of issues with the EU. It's undemocratic, it's neo liberal, it's corrupt, etc. However brexit as it stands its ridiculous. Its like complaining that your landlord is bad and your house has a load of problems - so you are going to move out and sleep in the park.

I've already noticed the decreased spending power of the pound, both in terms of smaller quantities here and lower exchange rate when I want to buy from overseas. So, inside the single market or outside?

[Beskar]

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

Except this has nothing to do with Identity in the slightest...
Though, in your hypothetical pub, I think people in the pub would be cheering when I agree with them that they should get extra money. :dizzy2:


London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.

This is basically what I said.


It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand.
This is not the case. It is Philippus getting super-pedantic storm-in-teacup grade over the idea where I agreed that his local area should get more investment, due to him discussing that it is historically under-invested. He has somehow managed to turn a comment where agreeing to extra money for his area into a quagmire where apparently agreeing that people should receive extra money would result in me getting beaten up by them for offending their identity in a local pub.

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

[Gilrandir]

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

[Beskar]

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

[Greyblades]

So, inside the single market or outside?

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

[Idaho]

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

Good question. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day ;)

[Husar]

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

I scrolled down until I saw a different avatar, just saying. ~;)

[Fragony]

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

What would you do, the EU is nothing but a hindrance for your trade, with the bonus of being bossed by a plumb ex-stasi eastblock farmhorse and a serial-alcoholic who just can't help wet kissing people

I hope my comptent is sufficiantly obvious

[Pannonian]

What would you do, the EU is nothing but a hindrance for your trade, with the bonus of being bossed by a plumb ex-stasi eastblock farmhorse and a serial-alcoholic who just can't help wet kissing people

I hope my comptent is sufficiantly obvious

As opposed to a bloke living in Dutchland telling the Brits it will all be worth it.

[Beskar]

I scrolled down until I saw a different avatar, just saying. ~;)

Husar 4, Frags 5...

What was Gills point again?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

You lost the argument when you put "separate countries" in quotation marks. London and Cornwall are not part of the Union "in the same way" as Northern Ireland, that is entirely the point.

Indeed, the relationship between London and England and between Northern Ireland and England are very different.


Wow. Some burning issues going down. Cornish secession. Lol

Heh, burning issues.

Say, remember during the Olympics when one of the runners in the torch relay unfurled a Cornish flag and tried to carry it over the Tamar Bridge, then got taken out by a Policeman?

Classic Cornish.


Except this has nothing to do with Identity in the slightest...
Though, in your hypothetical pub, I think people in the pub would be cheering when I agree with them that they should get extra money. :dizzy2:

No, it's all about identity - identity is why none of the otherwise UK-Wide parties mark seats in Northern Ireland.

As to suggesting we ape the DUP - given the number of ex-Servicemen here I'd imagine that'd go down like a sack of lead balloon.


This is basically what I said.

No, because you made a direct and inappropriate comparison between a region of England and a separate country.


This is not the case. It is Philippus getting super-pedantic storm-in-teacup grade over the idea where I agreed that his local area should get more investment, due to him discussing that it is historically under-invested. He has somehow managed to turn a comment where agreeing to extra money for his area into a quagmire where apparently agreeing that people should receive extra money would result in me getting beaten up by them for offending their identity in a local pub.

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

Do you realise that you're arguing about another region of the UK's political identity with someone who lives there and another Englishman, and the only person backing you up is an American?

[Beskar]

Do you realise that you're arguing about another region of the UK's political identity with someone who lives there and another Englishman, and the only person backing you up is an American?

Yet, I am not discussing identity at all and said that numerous times. So you can say and argue blue in the face because you lost the argument when you are only arguing with yourself. Montmorency is simply supporting me in the fact there isn't an argument there. I bow out from any participation in your straw man identity argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet, I am not discussing identity at all and said that numerous times. So you can say and argue blue in the face because you lost the argument when you are only arguing with yourself. Montmorency is simply supporting me in the fact there isn't an argument there. I bow out from any participation in your straw man identity argument.

Or you could just apologise for speaking out of turn. That would require you to admit that your comments could offend, though.

Politics is largely about identity, as are concepts of nationality. You tried to draw an equivalence between politicians in a region of England, and politicians in Northern Ireland and suggest that their constituants had a comparable relationship to "the Union" which is itself a rather American way to refer to the UK.

Nobody talks about "The Union" here except in the context of secession - which is a pregnant topic in Northern Ireland but not South-West England, especially because we would be more likely to secede from England rather than the UK.

Fine, though, try to back out gracelessly.

[Hooahguy]

So this is off topic but I figured a thread about the UK would be the best place in the BR for this.

I'm visiting London in the coming week, I would be down to meet Orgahs in the area who want to meet up for lunch or drinks and whatnot.

[Beskar]

Or you could just apologise for speaking out of turn. That would require you to admit that your comments could offend, though.

I am one of the first people to apologise when I have wronged someone or admit to a mistake. An easy example was the other week when I misread Fragony's post, and he clarified his point, I retracted my statement and apologised for it. Another example where you pointed out I got EU and NATO the wrong-way status around for Finland.

However, on this subject your offence is self-inflicted. I have clarified and expanded my position on the matter which you chose to ignore and continued on your tirade attempting to find more things to be offended about. As such, I have no duty to apologise for this self-inflicted hurt as you have shown no willingness to engage with me nor my further clarification. If you even replied after my further clarification, with "Ah ha, I mistook what you meant by that Beskar, be careful with your wording", I would happily have said "No problem, I apologise, I should have been clearer". Instead of accepting a rational error, you continue doggedly on this topic drawing offence where none was given or intended.

As such, I apologise if my point wasn't clearer resulting in a manner which it was not being intended nor implied. If you continue to feel this is "graceless", that is your prerogative.

[Husar]

Husar 4, Frags 5...

What was Gills point again?

I was actually supporting his point by saying I scrolled past your conversation until it seemed to be over when I saw Gilrandir's post.

[Fragony]

As opposed to a bloke living in Dutchland telling the Brits it will all be worth it.

Who really envies you lot. We can easily leave, slapping tarifs on us will only make food and industry in the EU more expensive. We are stuck with believers in the ideological part sadly, for now

peace, what a joke. With Ukraines now semi-membership and inevitable full membefshjp the EU ruins the deal that ended the cold war

[Gilrandir]

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...


Husar 4, Frags 5...

What was Gills point again?

Following the discussion and skimming posts to keep up my English are two different things. At least concerning me, can't speak for others you herded into the group of followers.