Printable View
Greyblades, you seem to forget that Labor MPs carry votes, and the government cannot run solely on 318+10 votes: hence politics.
You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.
Ok. The reasons why this loss feels like a victory:
- May declared the election with a 20+ poll lead
- she had a personal approval rating 3 times Corbyn
- she expressly stated that losing even 6 seats would be a failure
- she had a press almost entirely on her side
- she had the BBC political reporting team staffed with tory Party members
- Corbyn was repeatedly declared unelectable. Predictions of a landslide to the tories were routine on all sides
- the blairite right and the political commentators all agreed that you had to be a neoliberal to stand a chance. Social democracy was dead as a concept.
- it was stated that Labour had long since lost the south and Scotland and was now losing the north.
- we were promised that this was the last hopeless stand for the Labour left. The blairites backed off to let Corbyn own the defeat. None of the experienced labour mps would serve so he had to run with a gaggle of oddities and no marks.
That is were we started. And were did we end up?
- the tories lost their majority
- May's credibility is in tatters. 5 years? She might not even give it 5 days!
- 72% of the youth vote turned out. No one in British politics has achieved close to that before.
- Corbyn got the highest share of the vote for a Labour leader in modern times.
- labour picked up seats in Canterbury ffs! Canterbury went red!
- social democracy has been proven to be electorally viable.
- honest politics and not spin and soundbites attracted voters
Did labour win? No - but if you had offered me even half of the above any time in the last 40 years, I'd have bitten your hand off!
I am delighted :bounce:
Oh and did I mention that we get to see some more tory collapse and civil war?
Exactly, but the greeks punched far above their weight as you are aware, thus the myth and legend of 300 Spartans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
To Corbyn and his supporters, they turned an impossible victory, as Furunculus mentioned about putting money on a 375-399 landslide victory for the Conversatives, into a bloody nosed Pyrrhic victory for the Conservatives resulting in a hung parliament.
In this mindset, they won't be uprooted, Corbyn has shown that he is "electable" by giving a challenge to all those who said Labour were completely out for the count. Only way for Corbyn to be ousted is if Labour managed to get a good candidate into parliament in this election, which will cause his supporters to side with them over him.
Edit: See Idaho's post above this one as an example of this in action.
Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.Quote:
You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.
Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.
Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and his choice in lieutenants, and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.
He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.
You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And you think the EU aren't viewing it like that?
Even ignoring that mentality and treating this like a business negotiation you must be willing to acknowledge that the other guy is fully willing to profit at your expense if you let him and your primary leverage is the ability to walk away from the table and deny him any profit.
If you tie yourself to the table he has little reason to not exploit you to the fullest.
It is representative of the different ideologies of the parties...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Corbyn would look to work with the EU to secure the best deal
May would look to fight the EU tooth and nail to secure the best deal
The former sounds much more like a strategy for success.
I see a useless overhead that is scared about people finding out it's of no use at all, and claws at eyeballs if it's noticedQuote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Trump, brexit, May. It's amazing how one person can be so consistently right, yet so consistently wrong.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
Look at what was done to Greece, that is worse than accidently shooting yourself, it's simply criminal. Greece was used as a proxy to save German banks because it couldn't be done directly and Greece can never afford the 'loans' that went directly back. Fuck the euQuote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Yet that's wrong. In parliamentary government, large minorities have considerable policy and legislative influence - the larger, the more so. Even huge majorities do not often have the power to just act however they may please, and certainly not without the threat of imminently losing their majorites. This is without even getting into the 1/3-1/2 of post-war European governments that have been led by technical minorities, since this is largely a non-Anglo phenomenon, and Anglo legislatures tend to cluster operating majorities within 50-60% of seats. Notably however, minority government is the outcome of Conservatives with informal DUP support today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The point is that power in politics is incremental and not all-or-nothing. This also means that the winset over the status quo increases the larger the differences between players are. The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities.
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.Quote:
What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.
Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.
Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.
He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.
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.
I see a Dutch bloke pontificating about a British issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
May has set herself a threshold (a stronger mandate to back her in EU talks) and the electorate has moved in the other direction. Brexit talks and the attempt to gain a stronger electoral mandate was the reason May gave for putting aside the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and call a general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Your issues are also our issues but the Netherlands is just not as influential as the UK, we will always really agree with the UK but in the end always obey to others simply because we have no other option. A hard brexit is of the map I guess I hope the UK will continue beingQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
really annoying. It's a very big thing if the UK leaves, for the twisted ideological side eurocrats are psychopats
You can observe, but it's none of your business. Having to live through its reality, I find it intensely irritating to read your insistences that the pain will all be worth it. I despised the neolibs who told the Russians that in the 90s whilst living in New York or London, and I retain the same opinion about their modern day equivalents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Rofl!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Continuing a long and honourable tradition of being wrong.:D
You don't get to quote the second line without the context of the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I know it irritates you. But in general the Dutch like the English more than they like the EU, I am no different there. What I would like to see is the UK and the Netherlands teaming up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not really true now is it? Ukip was a gateway drug to get the working class in labour heartlands to vote tory for the first time since Thatcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
*puts this in signature*Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
My lib vote failed to stop the crazy nats. :(
Dup will be sufficient to get brexit underway, clearing of the non contentious items such as foriegn nationals.
But nothing contentious will be negotiated before the german elections (and the french for that matter).
No one is handing those two heads of state a fait acccompli from a lame duck president.
Anyone who thinks this won't be decided by the europoen council is daft.
For this reason, there is no real brexit bar to another election, merely domestic tolerance.
You reckon Ken Clarke won't be able to get another few Tories to cross the floor with him on Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.
The DUP want the current economic status of Northern Ireland to continue, with Northern Ireland having the same status as the rUK. So whatever agreements exist between Northern Ireland and Ireland aka the EU, the rUK will share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
#fakenewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...tions-answers/
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
it may well be how the eu acts, but that is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
this is about my expectations of british democracy.
if we choose chaos we deserve to burn. adversity always returns, thrive or die.
what is this hard brexit of which you speak?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"Red, white and blue Brexit."
"Brexit means Brexit."
"A stitch in time saves nine."
I'd go for burning. It even looks nice, bring sauages if it burns really well. And beerQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Your confusing means with ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I dont expect things to be safe, it only allows people to avoid problems. Face them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So what is the end point now that May has sought a clearer mandate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I understood you just fine, I tend to jest when I don't have anything meaningful to say, it's somwhere but not at handQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...onald_Tusk.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.
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?"
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.
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.
Definitely not good news for 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.
No, the election was intended to build a mandate based on that letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Saw it - Corbyn still lost, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Saw Nick Clegg lost his seat. I don't have anything to add to that, just figured it should be noted in this conversation.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It was good for T-Rex May to be confronted to un-electable Corbyn...:laugh4:
she failed, so the osborne wing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk...-britains.html
Actually, I returned to my default position (Lib Dem).Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I got to admit, the most surprising thing int his election was how the Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
You can shorten it just to May Day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Again, i return to my question: what is this "hard brexit" thing of which you speak? **Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...tions-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.
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.
Attachment 19697
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Hard Brexit is leaving all the European institutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You keep saying that. Would you be interested in enrolling into a de-radicalization program?Quote:
whether we escape the clutches of the ecj (inshallah!), or leave the great tariff wall, i.e. the customs union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Two very different views there:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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
May's joint chiefs of staff just resigned.
And two out of three on conservative home say she should go:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thet...signation.html
Drip drip....
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
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/807...-Ruth-DavidsonQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Asking that to me is just as meaningless as me asking it to you, you will always get the same regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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
Hard Brexit has bloody significant knock on effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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).