Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 412

Thread: UK General Election 2019

  1. #331
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Both the Labour candidate and the Tory candidate were from elsewhere - both from parts of London. At least neither even pretended to give to much of a crap about the local area.

    We did have an independent ex-Tory standing so that might make for a more interesting vote than is usually the case round here.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  2. #332
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    #yay
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  3. #333
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    That exit poll prediction is simply w t f.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  4. #334

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    You get what you merit. Your sneering conviction in presuming the moral inferiority of people who hold views you do not share deserves challenge.
    Do you think it is impossible for any of your beliefs to be morally problematic? Or that they don't even need to be justified? I don't think the same of myself. So, what's your challenge?

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    For the Leftist position you'll have to ask Corbyn (hard socialist), McDonnell (Trotskyist) or Frank Field (hardcore Old Labour). It remains the case that many of the hardcore Brexiteers are also hard left. Don't like it? Not my problem.
    "Many" is a weaselly word that obscures their status as a small minority. That's the point.

    I voted out because I believe the EU is a malign and undemocratic institution regardless of its original intentions, it is also incapable of the root and branch reform required.
    "Many" might say the same about the United Kingdom.

    For our purposes I wouldn't even ask about your perception of the EU, I would only ask you to justify your decision to leave for those reasons against the consequences of actually leaving, and against those of the status quo.

    2. Johnson is generally in favour of free speech - as an American I'm sure that's a difficult concept for you to grasp, though.
    Ah, of course, but Jeremy Corbyn cannot be in favor of (much milder) free speech against a powerful state, which speech is not as valuable or worthy of defending as agitation against social minorities.

    This once again is the tell, Phil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    I would go a little further - his disdain for good manners and any attempt at congenial conversation is reprehensible.

    It's like talking to a religious zealot - like the N'name guy who used to post here, Young Creationist... eventually went Muslim because other Christians were too moderate.
    The problem is, you're full of it and I won't forget.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 12-12-2019 at 23:46.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  5. #335
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    That exit poll prediction is simply w t f.
    I'm not that surprised by it. It just shows my disappointment at Corbyn as Labour leader is entirely justified.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  6. #336
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
    Do you want a bit of mayonnaise with your omlette topped, custard covered egg pudding? You are just waving around Tory scare words to excite yourself.

    Corbyn is a fairly traditional labour democratic socialist, same as Field and McDonnell. This is the political tradition that rebuilt the country after WW2, that gave us the health service, a welfare state, safety at work, basic consumer and civil rights. To masquerade these things as bad is like the bonkers ukippers who bemoan the European human rights act (which Britain drafted).
    if I want to excite myself we have the Babe Thread.

    I actually have a lot of respect for Frank Field, he is precisely the sort of Old Labour politician who rebuilt the country after the war, as you say. McDonnell is a self-described Trot though and Corbyn is that kind of Hard-Left Middle Class politician who'll flirt with anything anti-British, including the mouthpieces of Russian and Iranian despots.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  7. #337
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    [QUOTE=Montmorency;2053801782]"Many" is a weaselly word that obscures their status as a small minority. That's the point.[/quote[

    Tonight the Conservatives won a seat that has been Labour since its creation in 1950, but it also voted Leave and now they've voted Conservative. I said "many" not "majority", though in this case the many will give the Conservative their majority.

    "Many" might say the same about the United Kingdom.

    For our purposes I wouldn't even ask about your perception of the EU, I would only ask you to justify your decision to leave for those reasons against the consequences of actually leaving, and against those of the status quo.
    We haven't left, and I said years ago - and have said since - that we won't know the consequences of leaving for a decade or two. So, I can't answer your question.

    Perhaps Britain's acrimonious divorce from the EU will break NATO and we will have to rearm.

    Ah, of course, but Jeremy Corbyn cannot be in favor of (much milder) free speech against a powerful state, which speech is not as valuable or worthy of defending as agitation against social minorities.

    This once again is the tell, Phil.
    I did not say I agreed with him, simply that I understand the unwillingness to fire someone. Understanding is not the same as agreement - an open mind is not a mind open to disease.

    Anyway, you're days behind the curve:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2019-12-13 (2).png 
Views:	55 
Size:	210.6 KB 
ID:	23146

    Now, please accuse me of Antisemitism directly instead of dancing around the issue, hmm?

    The problem is, you're full of it and I won't forget.
    No, the problem is you only liked me when you thought I was an expert in "meaningless" topics like theology - now that you have to confront the fact I might know something about historical politics, economics etc., hard historical subjects, you don't like me because I challenge your non-expert opinions on those topics.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  8. #338
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Wow, this is turning into a bloodbath.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  9. #339
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,414

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Wow, this is turning into a bloodbath.
    I would have said GARBAGE FIRE, but that works, too.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

    Member thankful for this post:



  10. #340
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Does this mean you'll be owning the results of Brexit after this emphatic reaffirmation of what you wanted? You can't blame Parliament or anyone else any more after this.

  11. #341
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Does this mean you'll be owning the results of Brexit after this emphatic reaffirmation of what you wanted? You can't blame Parliament or anyone else any more after this.
    Ugh, again?

    We voted to Leave - nobody (as yet) has consulted us on what that actually means.

    I Remain had one would it be fair for me to spend three years haranguing you over Greek stagflation?
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  12. #342

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    I was planning on a UK trip in 2021, looks like instead I will be visiting a unified Ireland, the Republic of Scotland, and the Kingdom of England.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Idaho 


  13. #343

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Corbyn's had his run, time to retire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Tonight the Conservatives won a seat that has been Labour since its creation in 1950, but it also voted Leave and now they've voted Conservative. I said "many" not "majority", though in this case the many will give the Conservative their majority.
    Yeah, 10%, or what? "Many" has many truth conditions.

    FPTP has helped the Conservatives well enough this election, but ironically FPTP precipitated this whole situation by denying Theresa May her majority in 2017 on the account of a few hundred distributed votes. Had May got the majority she wanted in the first place... Think the Brits can get around to a bipartisan electoral reform sometime soon now?



    We haven't left, and I said years ago - and have said since - that we won't know the consequences of leaving for a decade or two. So, I can't answer your question.
    Do you know the consequences of the French Revolution yet?

    Perhaps Britain's acrimonious divorce from the EU will break NATO and we will have to rearm.
    Sounds like a bad agenda and a bad outcome.

    I did not say I agreed with him, simply that I understand the unwillingness to fire someone. Understanding is not the same as agreement - an open mind is not a mind open to disease.
    This is a failure of self-reflection.

    "Free speech" = good

    Not firing someone for writing eliminationist vitriol under your editorial review is upholding free speech, a funny "guilty pleasure".

    Corbyn not calling for the deplatforming of Hamas, writing a non-hostile foreword for a book containing one page of anti-Semitism, that's damning.

    It's clear whose speech you value, and the fickleness of your putative principles, and that's what it typically comes down to.

    No, the problem is you only liked me when you thought I was an expert in "meaningless" topics like theology - now that you have to confront the fact I might know something about historical politics, economics etc., hard historical subjects, you don't like me because I challenge your non-expert opinions on those topics
    Theology as soft vs. politics and history as hard is not a dichotomy I've ever come across. You've discussed politics and history here for many years, and I always had a higher impression of you. The problem today is you're consistently dishonest and factually inaccurate and completely inflexible about it while unjustly imprecating me. If you keep telling me who you are at some point I have to believe you.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  14. #344
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Do you think it is impossible for any of your beliefs to be morally problematic? Or that they don't even need to be justified? I don't think the same of myself. So, what's your challenge?
    Sure.
    Which?
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  15. #345
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Corbyn's had his run, time to retire.



    Yeah, 10%, or what? "Many" has many truth conditions.

    FPTP has helped the Conservatives well enough this election, but ironically FPTP precipitated this whole situation by denying Theresa May her majority in 2017 on the account of a few hundred distributed votes. Had May got the majority she wanted in the first place... Think the Brits can get around to a bipartisan electoral reform sometime soon now?





    Do you know the consequences of the French Revolution yet?
    Most current MPs would rather their seat remained safe and give them a career than reform that would only help the country and not them.

    When there was a vote to replace FPTP that the other option available was both poorly explained as well as not that great demonstrated no one in politics wanted a change.

    So Corbyn says he'll not be the leader in the next election. Will that be standing down now or in 4 years time? Please be now. Johnson needs someone to keep him in check and Corbyn is clearly happier talking to like minded acolytes than leading the opposition since his main problem is the UK electorate.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  16. #346
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    So Corbyn says he'll not be the leader in the next election. Will that be standing down now or in 4 years time? Please be now.
    gotta have time to rig the internal party machinary so the Momentum project can rumble on.
    i hope the idea of a european style UK social democracy was still-born last night, stick to <40% of gdp rather than >45%.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  17. #347
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I was planning on a UK trip in 2021, looks like instead I will be visiting a unified Ireland, the Republic of Scotland, and the Kingdom of England.
    Who said Scotland will be a republic?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	images.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	9.3 KB 
ID:	23148
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  18. #348
    Member Member Xantan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    TW Org
    Posts
    274

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    SNP said they're asking for a second independence vote, since they do not want out of the EU at all.

    And given the fact that SNP has almost all of the seats in Scotland...

  19. #349
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    they're going to be in a bit of a political pickle shortly, once we leave the eu and get a relatively thin fta that permits a wide degree of divergence.

    because we've just had three years of non-stop nightmare trying to sever a great-power from fifty years of regulatory integration over just 45% of trade.

    Lary Queen of Scots faces the task of persuading a weary public that it's a good idea to spend another three years trying to sever a mini-state from 300 years of regulatory integration governing about 60% of scottish trade.

    "Fancy a hard border with your english family" is going to be a tough sell. bring it on...
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  20. #350
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Xantan View Post
    SNP said they're asking for a second independence vote, since they do not want out of the EU at all.

    And given the fact that SNP has almost all of the seats in Scotland...
    I mean we might finally see a Scottish king after three hundred years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  21. #351
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK General Election 2019

    https://unherd.com/2019/12/how-left-...nalism-failed/

    good article on the failure of left wing journalism in the corbyn era...
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  22. #352
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    they're going to be in a bit of a political pickle shortly, once we leave the eu and get a relatively thin fta that permits a wide degree of divergence.

    because we've just had three years of non-stop nightmare trying to sever a great-power from fifty years of regulatory integration over just 45% of trade.

    Lary Queen of Scots faces the task of persuading a weary public that it's a good idea to spend another three years trying to sever a mini-state from 300 years of regulatory integration governing about 60% of scottish trade.

    "Fancy a hard border with your english family" is going to be a tough sell. bring it on...
    I really wish the Scottish would just leave. They get a disproportionate share of the money, votes in the UK Parliament and then their own parliament in case they didn't get their own way.

    So please just leave. We can still be friends - in fact we seem to get on better with Canada and Australia with weaker ties.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  23. #353
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Yeah, 10%, or what? "Many" has many truth conditions.
    In Dennis Skinner's seat 60% of people voted Leave - he's held the seat for fifty years. Real old Labour, local miner's son from a mining town. Last night he lost it, partly down to Brexit (which he voted for) but also down to Corbyn.

    Much of the North of England, tranditional Labour strongholds, voted Leave by a significant margin, now that same margin has delivered Tory MP's. What do you want?

    Do you know the consequences of the French Revolution yet?
    Yes, I'd say so, mass murder, despotism and ultimately a string of regimes more brutal by far than the monarchy they replaced - culminating in Napoleon, the worst of the lot.

    Sounds like a bad agenda and a bad outcome.
    I come from a part of the country where the Navy and the dockyards are (rather were) major employers, especially in Appledore, so from my perspective rearmament is subjectively good. However, I was indulging in idle speculation, not wishing.

    This is a failure of self-reflection.

    "Free speech" = good

    Not firing someone for writing eliminationist vitriol under your editorial review is upholding free speech, a funny "guilty pleasure".

    Corbyn not calling for the deplatforming of Hamas, writing a non-hostile foreword for a book containing one page of anti-Semitism, that's damning.

    It's clear whose speech you value, and the fickleness of your putative principles, and that's what it typically comes down to.
    First off, it's two thirds of a chapter, not a page. Hobson first defines the "financier" as Jewish, then vilifies him. This is not hard to see and is in line with his earlier work when he explicitly assigned all the malignancies of the same "financiers" to Jews.

    Secondly, you make a fallacious assumption in assuming that I believe unqualified free speech is "good". I'm and middle class English, if we have a catch phrase it's probably "You can't say that!"

    Anyway, you've handily ignored me tarring Johnson with the same brush as Corbyn - you get that's me in the maille coif, right? As I said, understanding is not the same as aagreeing. I understand why you would burn heretics at the stake, within the confines of a particular worldview it is an entirely moral thing to do - this does not mean that I think it is a moral thing to do.

    Theology as soft vs. politics and history as hard is not a dichotomy I've ever come across. You've discussed politics and history here for many years, and I always had a higher impression of you. The problem today is you're consistently dishonest and factually inaccurate and completely inflexible about it while unjustly imprecating me. If you keep telling me who you are at some point I have to believe you.
    Put your money where you mouth is, report my "dishonest posts" and get me banned. If you do and the Admin bans me I'm sure I'll deserve it, I don't think it's likely though. You assign malign motivations to me at every turn and have done since I told you to eff-off for privately haranguing me after I asked you to stop.

    I stand by what I said, that West Point professor's book was slapdash if not a wilful misrepresentation and Anglo-Saxon and medieval society didn't work the way you want them to.
    Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 12-13-2019 at 22:16.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  24. #354
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Yes, I'd say so, mass murder, despotism and ultimately a string of regimes more brutal by far than the monarchy they replaced - culminating in Napoleon, the worst of the lot.
    Worse than Rospierre? We talking domestically worst or internationally?
    Last edited by Greyblades; 12-14-2019 at 00:04.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  25. #355

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Would you look at that FPTP.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CNN Election Tracker-.png 
Views:	63 
Size:	22.6 KB 
ID:	23151


    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    Sure.
    Which?
    Pick any. I don't have a full range on you (though I can extrapolate), since almost all your commentary here is on aspects of British politics or economics vis-a-vis Brexit, with a garnish of militarily-aggressive foreign policy and protestation of moderacy (is that called an amuse-bouche?).

    If you'd rather I stake out to start, I would question your fixation on government spending proportionate to GDP seemingly without regard to what that means in practice or what the outcomes are. I don't need to tell you these aren't videogame sliders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    gotta have time to rig the internal party machinary so the Momentum project can rumble on.
    Labour was campaigning against Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna (the LibDem defectors from the PLP earlier in the year). In City of London/Westminster (Umunna), Labour + LibDem lost 57% to Conservative 40%. In Finchley & Golders Green (Berger), Labour + LibDem lost 56% to Cons 44%.

    Seems suboptimal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    they're going to be in a bit of a political pickle shortly, once we leave the eu and get a relatively thin fta that permits a wide degree of divergence.

    because we've just had three years of non-stop nightmare trying to sever a great-power from fifty years of regulatory integration over just 45% of trade.

    Lary Queen of Scots faces the task of persuading a weary public that it's a good idea to spend another three years trying to sever a mini-state from 300 years of regulatory integration governing about 60% of scottish trade.

    "Fancy a hard border with your english family" is going to be a tough sell. bring it on...
    It's not clear why one would be wonderful but the other is irrational. A sad irony would be manifest if a subsequent Scottish referendum boosts the independence share to victory on a narrow margin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xantan View Post
    SNP said they're asking for a second independence vote, since they do not want out of the EU at all.

    And given the fact that SNP has almost all of the seats in Scotland...
    Doesn't the dominance of the SNP - a party that took almost two generations to win a single seat, and then more than another again to properly break into double digits - in Scotland ultimately detract from Labour far more than Conservatives, independence or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    they're going to be in a bit of a political pickle shortly, once we leave the eu and get a relatively thin fta that permits a wide degree of divergence.
    How are you going to get that? Now that the withdrawal can probably pass Parliament, what I've heard about any trade deal (within one year or three): The main differences IIRC between the Johnson WA and the May WA are Johnson making concessions on Northern Ireland and customs while punting regulatory alignment to the non-binding aspirational declaration. The stumbling block between Johnson and the EU after withdrawal is that the EU will demand the maintenance of the level playing field plus an EU-controlled enforcement mechanism, but the Conservative MPs are largely ideologically opposed to this. Isn't withdrawal with no short-term prospect of a trade deal, or a flop trade deal that surrenders all benefits in exchange for regulatory decoupling, functionally equivalent to hard Brexit?

    Found an interesting song that reflects poorly on LibDems as an expression of their enduring core dogma:

    So bye, bye to the great Lib-Lab lie

    That it’s made in heaven

    ‘cos that’s pie in the sky

    Us Lib Dems will take courage and cry

    “Tony Blair can **** off and die”

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    In Dennis Skinner's seat 60% of people voted Leave - he's held the seat for fifty years. Real old Labour, local miner's son from a mining town. Last night he lost it, partly down to Brexit (which he voted for) but also down to Corbyn.

    Much of the North of England, tranditional Labour strongholds, voted Leave by a significant margin, now that same margin has delivered Tory MP's. What do you want?
    Several problems.

    No constituency is 100% all one party vote, and in fact something like half of all seats (for example in 2017) were won with 40-60% of the vote; in 2010 and 2015 the vast majority of winners had a vote share in that range. Since there are not 100% Labour voters living in Bolsover, your implication that 60% of Labour voters in some community supported Leave is a categorical error. (I looked more specifically at Bolsover: in the 2017, 2015, 2010 elections (after which the numbers are not available on Wiki) Labour won that seat with between 50-52% of the vote.)

    Overall up to around a quarter of Labour voters nationally are or had been Leavers. So Labour Leavers are a minority of Labour, a minority of Leavers, and an even smaller minority of the general population. Very few Leavers, Labour or otherwise, chose Leave for left-ideological reasons as opposed to racism, jingoism, or inchoate distaste. This adds up to a tiny minority pursuing Leave out of ideological opposition to the EU as a "neoliberal" institution, or because they think a Labour government can rise from the ashes of post-Brexit Britain.

    Tangentially, I haven't seen a full list of constituency results up on Wiki yet but looking at pages like the BBC tracker my first impressions of the results are:

    1. The prediction that LibDems would harm Labour electoral prospects does not seem to have played out in more than a handful of seats. There were probably even as many seats in which residual Labour votes handicapped promising LibDem contenders.
    2. Instead, the Brexit Party did indeed hurt Labour as predicted.
    3. But the Brexit Party was not enough! In at least as many seats as in which the Brexit Party clearly pulled a fatal number of voters from Labour, there was instead a greater outright increase in the Conservative share relative to the Labour share decrease (i.e. potential defection directly to Conservatives rather than BP).
    4. Across the flipped constituencies you see many cases of Labour losing a vote share comparable to the predicted proportion of pro-Leave Labour voters. What to look for in subsequent analysis is if, whereas pro-Remain Conservative voters were likely to stay with the Conservative Party despite cross-pressure, did pro-Leave Labour voters lack the same degree of loyalty? The only other systematic non-defection explanation I can think of at the granular level (not reflected in what data is readily available yet) would be a marked increase in Tory turnout corresponding to a similar decrease in Labour turnout. I don't think I would default to that explanation without affirmative evidence however. If it looks like electoral realignment, it's probably electoral realignment.

    Yes, I'd say so, mass murder, despotism and ultimately a string of regimes more brutal by far than the monarchy they replaced - culminating in Napoleon, the worst of the lot.
    I'll bring in Mark Twain:

    THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
    Hear hear.

    First off, it's two thirds of a chapter, not a page. Hobson first defines the "financier" as Jewish, then vilifies him. This is not hard to see and is in line with his earlier work when he explicitly assigned all the malignancies of the same "financiers" to Jews
    The chapter is about financiers' economic interests. It is not about financier being Jews, though the author believes they mostly are. Let's make it relatable to you:

    'Kings were the focal individuals of medieval societies. As it happened, most of them were crypto-Jews and that's why they intermarried between each other's families so thoroughly...'

    If an author were to make a comment like that in passing, it would neither invalidate the first clause about the role or status of kings, nor color the rest of the text as a mere anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

    Secondly, you make a fallacious assumption in assuming that I believe unqualified free speech is "good". I'm and middle class English, if we have a catch phrase it's probably "You can't say that!"

    Anyway, you've handily ignored me tarring Johnson with the same brush as Corbyn - you get that's me in the maille coif, right? As I said, understanding is not the same as aagreeing. I understand why you would burn heretics at the stake, within the confines of a particular worldview it is an entirely moral thing to do - this does not mean that I think it is a moral thing to do.
    That's exactly it. You don't tar with the same brush, even were that justified. You coddle and protect - yes, that's what you do with your words - Boris Johnson, but do not extend the same treatment to Corbyn. Why are you unable to perceive the discrepancy in your behavior? And what's more galling is that by your standards one should be deemed much worse than the other, or if Johnson can be understood and tolerated then it should be trivial to say the same of Corbyn. And yet you don't make the connection for some reason.

    As it happens I think Corbyn should have been less pro-speech, or if he were truly serious about the need to platform extremists to facilitate dialogue and the peace process he - and this is the whole problem, right? - he should have created or promoted spaces where radical anti-Zionists could interact with, if not mainstream exactly, then at least groups and individuals who were not themselves also all radical anti-Zionists. As far as I know he's always been happy to hear out the Hamas's and Hezbollahs and most dedicated critics of Israel, but not the liberals, the hardcore Zionists, the remnants of the Israeli left. all the different voices... How can one call himself a fan of free speech and the peace process if they only consort with a sub-section of their own camp?

    Put your money where you mouth is, report my "dishonest posts" and get me banned. If you do and the Admin bans me I'm sure I'll deserve it, I don't think it's likely though. You assign malign motivations to me at every turn and have done since I told you to eff-off for privately haranguing me after I asked you to stop.
    You can't be banned for dishonesty lol.

    I stand by what I said, that West Point professor's book was slapdash if not a wilful misrepresentation and Anglo-Saxon and medieval society didn't work the way you want them to.
    You disgust me.

    All because you dislike me personally and don't like to hear me raise the topic of racism, you falsely smeared an author with accusations of academic misconduct with no evidence - indeed against all available evidence - while engaging in dishonest misrepresentation yourself. If you tried to pull this shit in an academic context I don't see how you could escape formal rebuke.

    You keep telling me you are malign, that's why I assign malign motives. I've tried extending charity and graciousness from time to time - though I doubt you ever felt it as such - and encouraged your engagement in the Backroom, tried to accommodate your opinions. I even took your anti-modernist propaganda of feudal chivalry in stride, I was so coddlesome of you in seeking comity.

    You make inconsistent arguments because you don't give a crap about the underlying substance. The way you talk about the conduct of politicians, and how it affects people, is fully revealing of your priors and your commitments. You don't care about anti-racism, anti-Semitism, about people's lives, so you are left completely unable to frame and oppose social harms beyond your performative need to lash out at uncongenial political orientations. If you don't understand or care about the issues then you are going to fall short of contributing anything serious to their measure.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  26. #356
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Several problems.

    No constituency is 100% all one party vote, and in fact something like half of all seats (for example in 2017) were won with 40-60% of the vote; in 2010 and 2015 the vast majority of winners had a vote share in that range. Since there are not 100% Labour voters living in Bolsover, your implication that 60% of Labour voters in some community supported Leave is a categorical error. (I looked more specifically at Bolsover: in the 2017, 2015, 2010 elections (after which the numbers are not available on Wiki) Labour won that seat with between 50-52% of the vote.)

    Overall up to around a quarter of Labour voters nationally are or had been Leavers. So Labour Leavers are a minority of Labour, a minority of Leavers, and an even smaller minority of the general population. Very few Leavers, Labour or otherwise, chose Leave for left-ideological reasons as opposed to racism, jingoism, or inchoate distaste. This adds up to a tiny minority pursuing Leave out of ideological opposition to the EU as a "neoliberal" institution, or because they think a Labour government can rise from the ashes of post-Brexit Britain.

    Tangentially, I haven't seen a full list of constituency results up on Wiki yet but looking at pages like the BBC tracker my first impressions of the results are:

    1. The prediction that LibDems would harm Labour electoral prospects does not seem to have played out in more than a handful of seats. There were probably even as many seats in which residual Labour votes handicapped promising LibDem contenders.
    2. Instead, the Brexit Party did indeed hurt Labour as predicted.
    3. But the Brexit Party was not enough! In at least as many seats as in which the Brexit Party clearly pulled a fatal number of voters from Labour, there was instead a greater outright increase in the Conservative share relative to the Labour share decrease (i.e. potential defection directly to Conservatives rather than BP).
    4. Across the flipped constituencies you see many cases of Labour losing a vote share comparable to the predicted proportion of pro-Leave Labour voters. What to look for in subsequent analysis is if, whereas pro-Remain Conservative voters were likely to stay with the Conservative Party despite cross-pressure, did pro-Leave Labour voters lack the same degree of loyalty? The only other systematic non-defection explanation I can think of at the granular level (not reflected in what data is readily available yet) would be a marked increase in Tory turnout corresponding to a similar decrease in Labour turnout. I don't think I would default to that explanation without affirmative evidence however. If it looks like electoral realignment, it's probably electoral realignment.
    A Labour friend of mine told me exit polls indicate Corbyn was the deciding factor in many cases, so this Conservative breakthrough may be a one-off. It's basically Trump V Clinton - the Left put up a detestable candidate in the belief people would fight the other candidate more detestable, leavened by Corbyn's limited success against May. Really, though, isn't a quarter of Labour voters enough to qualify as "many"? If you try to say by "many" I meant "majority" I won't have it. I said that many on the Far Left of Labour are Eurosceptic and that includes Corbyn, it also included the late Michael Foot, whose dismal election result Corbyn has managed to undershoot - making this election Labour new Post-War low.

    I'll bring in Mark Twain:

    Hear hear.
    What is the target here? The Church? I'm not even getting into that one with you, sufficed to say that any "reign of Terror" on the part of the Roman Catholic Church would have lasted, at worst, about 600 years from the point of view of Mr Twain, and would have included very few burnings of heretics. Whilst the burning of heretics absolutely did happen in the medieval period it's primarily a Renaissance thing - as is religious extremism. It's also pretty easy to judge Europe's low life expectancy from the perspective of a country that never experienced a mass outbreak of Plague.

    If you are trying to argue that modern France came out of the Revolution I would argue modern France came out of Napoleon's defeat, which led to a Constitutional Monarchy in France which eventually led to a democratic Republic. If you want to argue that the Revolution led to democracy in modern France I'll argue that Romulus is responsible for all modern western Civilisation - we can keep playing that game until we get back to a hominid named Ug who discovered fire, if you like.

    The chapter is about financiers' economic interests. It is not about financier being Jews, though the author believes they mostly are. Let's make it relatable to you:
    Actually, the chapter is about more than financiers, it's about all those who profit from Imperialism, including the industrialists and the military, and those fulfilling military contracts. The fact that Hobson equates financiers with Jews taints the latter two parts of that chapter and his comments should be seen as antisemitic. Moreover, his comments need to be recognised as dangerous because they legitimise the narrative of the Jewish conspiracy - the mention of anarchist assassins is particularly pointed in the later context of World War I.

    'Kings were the focal individuals of medieval societies. As it happened, most of them were crypto-Jews and that's why they intermarried between each other's families so thoroughly...'
    Funny thing - close intermarriage between monarchical families is... you guessed it... mostly a Renaissance thing. The medieval Catholic Church and Salic Law both disallowed marriage between people related up to the... 12th? degree. That's an incredibly strict standard, much more so than modern marriage law. Application for dispensation need to be seen in this light, people were not often marrying their first or second cousins.

    If an author were to make a comment like that in passing, it would neither invalidate the first clause about the role or status of kings, nor color the rest of the text as a mere anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
    Such a statement would demonstrate sloppy historiography, because it's inaccurate. Casting monarchy in Europe as a conspiracy enacted by a Jewish elite would invalidate anything worthwhile the author might say. The mere fact that his observations were occasionally accurate would not merit giving any weight to his analysis. That is not to say all of his analysis would automatically be wrong, but I wouldn't use his work to teach without the aforementioned intellectual hazmat suit.

    That's exactly it. You don't tar with the same brush, even were that justified. You coddle and protect - yes, that's what you do with your words - Boris Johnson, but do not extend the same treatment to Corbyn. Why are you unable to perceive the discrepancy in your behavior? And what's more galling is that by your standards one should be deemed much worse than the other, or if Johnson can be understood and tolerated then it should be trivial to say the same of Corbyn. And yet you don't make the connection for some reason.

    As it happens I think Corbyn should have been less pro-speech, or if he were truly serious about the need to platform extremists to facilitate dialogue and the peace process he - and this is the whole problem, right? - he should have created or promoted spaces where radical anti-Zionists could interact with, if not mainstream exactly, then at least groups and individuals who were not themselves also all radical anti-Zionists. As far as I know he's always been happy to hear out the Hamas's and Hezbollahs and most dedicated critics of Israel, but not the liberals, the hardcore Zionists, the remnants of the Israeli left. all the different voices... How can one call himself a fan of free speech and the peace process if they only consort with a sub-section of their own camp?
    Again, this assumption that I support Boris Johnson. You saw the facebook post where I described them as two sides of the same crooked penny, yes? How is that coddling? You clearly don't understand Boris Johnson, where I think you do understand Corbyn. So, I don't think you need Corbyn explaining to you. What part of "You don't have to like someone to understand them" isn't getting through?


    You can't be banned for dishonesty lol.
    You can be banned you malign posting and antagonising other posters. If you don't want to report me why don't you start a thread attacking my posts directly, instead of hijacking every other thread to insult me?

    You disgust me.

    All because you dislike me personally and don't like to hear me raise the topic of racism, you falsely smeared an author with accusations of academic misconduct with no evidence - indeed against all available evidence - while engaging in dishonest misrepresentation yourself. If you tried to pull this shit in an academic context I don't see how you could escape formal rebuke.
    It's really not about you. I dislike that you are rude to people, uncaring of their feelings and seem to make a virtue of insults. That has nothing to do with my, frankly, passing judgement on another academic's work. I think my original comment was "book looks dodgy, cutting off a quote like that." I explained why I think that's bad practise, usually employed to misled readers, I quoted a review from when the book was published where someone far more versed in the subject than I criticised the author for misrepresenting evidence and I quoted the AHRC Style Guide on the proper, and improper, use of ellipsis.

    I don't have time to go get the book out of the Library and write a review of the chapter. I just don't think it's very good from what I've seen. Yeesh.

    I also don't get this "don't like to hear me raise the topic of racism" thing you have. As I said previously, Britons thought that the US Army was racist in the 1940's, my own grandfather - who was not hugely progressive - was pretty horrified with the way the black battalions were basically used as manual labour to lay out the camps for white soldiers on exercise where the British soldiers laid out their own camps. The specifics of the story of the Tuskegee Airmen was already well known to me, so I was frankly a bit miffed at your apparent surprise. You not seen Red Tails?



    It's a somewhat strange film, I personally enjoyed it but I think a lot of people missed the point that it's supposed to be a throw-back like Indiana Jones, so rather than being a "modern" film it's sort of the film George Lucas thinks the black servicemen deserved to have made about them in the late 40's, early 50's, which is why it might seem a bit stilted.

    I suppose because I'm a filthy righty though nothing I say will convince you I'm not a crypto-racist.

    You keep telling me you are malign, that's why I assign malign motives. I've tried extending charity and graciousness from time to time - though I doubt you ever felt it as such - and encouraged your engagement in the Backroom, tried to accommodate your opinions. I even took your anti-modernist propaganda of feudal chivalry in stride, I was so coddlesome of you in seeking comity.
    That word, "coddlesome", it's the same as "infantalise" which is what you were doing to me until recently. You even made a comment about how you'd sit an listen patiently if I explained Beowulf to you - frankly insulting.

    OK, how about this - Beowulf might be gay. We could talk about Queering Marie de France, if you prefer? I'm not a fan of the Lanval reading, I think that's probably about suicide personally, or at least depression. On the other hand, the whole thing with Bisclavret being a werewolf and that being a coded way to talk about homosexuality I find somewhat compelling.

    You see malignancy because you wish to see it, you do not wish to see any nuance, you are not actually interested in what I think - I'm just a target for you to attack. Prior to that I was a target for you to try to convert, once it became apparent I'd rather die than think like you you moved from conversion to attack.

    You make inconsistent arguments because you don't give a crap about the underlying substance. The way you talk about the conduct of politicians, and how it affects people, is fully revealing of your priors and your commitments. You don't care about anti-racism, anti-Semitism, about people's lives, so you are left completely unable to frame and oppose social harms beyond your performative need to lash out at uncongenial political orientations. If you don't understand or care about the issues then you are going to fall short of contributing anything serious to their measure.
    As with that dratted book, you insist on seeing my offhand observations as attempts at deep penetrating arguments. I'm not here to be serious Monty, never really have been. It's also apparent from your posts you can't really distinguish between me, Furunculus and Greyblades.

    Although, I was serious when I told Idaho that if he stands for Parliament I'll run his campaign because, despite our vast differences I think he's a decent man. To be perfectly honest, I might have voted Labour yesterday given I have a fairly good opinion of Ben Bradshaw, I never could have forgiven myself if I'd been complicit in getting Corbyn into power, though, so I didn't. I really wanted to vote Lib Dem but they stood down in my Constituency in favour of the Greens who I can't take seriously. Given that I always vote for someone and never deface my ballot that left the Conservatives as the only remaining option - excepting the Brexit Party and UKIP.

    Being serious, for a moment, much of the Labour manifesto was attention grabbing nonsense - like the pledge to give everyone free high speed broadband. That was an eye-catching pitch but what I want to hear about is road repair, restoration of the dismantled rails links in the county and repair of the roads. One of the reasons Devon and Cornwall are impoverished is that they are physically difficult to access. It's no good having high speed internet to allow you to quickly process online transactions if you have no way to ship materials in or good out to actually make anything. Despite that, my senior school English teacher who is now a Labour politician is in favour of keeping the Tarker Trail as a bicycle route for tourists, instead of closing it and laying new track. Then you have the fact that we have only one rail link coming into Devon and it's the coastal one that goes through Dawlish, which is wetland, rather than the central moorland link which is actually still physically extant but which no government will make part of a rail franchise to run regular trains.

    So, show me a prospective government "for the people" that will address actual basic infrastructure, because that's all we have the money for.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  27. #357
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Worse than Rospierre? We talking domestically worst or internationally?
    Rospierre was complicit in atrocities and paid the price - he also betrayed the spirit of the Revolution in an attempt to save it.

    Napoleon's policy was that his soldiers should take what ever they wanted from regions they passed through, goods chattels, women... in FRANCE.

    Napoleon was popular for being a good general, certainly, but he was also popular with his men because he let them indulge their vilest impulses. By contrast Wellington hanged men for stealing chickens and paid for everything in Francs. Now, sure, the francs were fake but the silver in them wasn't.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  28. #358
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Pick any. I don't have a full range on you (though I can extrapolate), since almost all your commentary here is on aspects of British politics or economics vis-a-vis Brexit, with a garnish of militarily-aggressive foreign policy and protestation of moderacy (is that called an amuse-bouche?).

    If you'd rather I stake out to start, I would question your fixation on government spending proportionate to GDP seemingly without regard to what that means in practice or what the outcomes are. I don't need to tell you these aren't videogame sliders.
    I'm not getting how that view is 'morally problematic'.
    Both myself and my wife grew up in dictatorships (different ones as it happens), and it doesn't seem 'immoral to take from that experience the desire to limit the power of the state to rule over the lives of its citizens. I know what arbitrary state power means when a family friend can be dumped on his wife's doorstep in a hessian sack, who is then told if she makes a fuss her child will never receive an education. My wife knew what life was like to have a gov't spy in every village - known by all, but utterly untouchable in her role of reporting on unpatriotic village activity.

    Limitation achieved in two parts:
    1. Functionally - in starving the state of the resources to act out tyrannical ambitions (i.e. tax-n-spend)
    2. Socially - in reducing the authority of the state to arbitrate on private matters (i.e. regulation)
    As it happens I have no real feeling about the absolute value, 40% is just a usefully marketable value in the context of UK political history.

    Again, we talking about spending more than canada does here, so I struggle with how this is 'morally problematic'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Labour was campaigning against Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna (the LibDem defectors from the PLP earlier in the year). In City of London/Westminster (Umunna), Labour + LibDem lost 57% to Conservative 40%. In Finchley & Golders Green (Berger), Labour + LibDem lost 56% to Cons 44%.

    Seems suboptimal.
    I can't see from the context of what you were quoting why you are telling me this...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    It's not clear why one would be wonderful but the other is irrational. A sad irony would be manifest if a subsequent Scottish referendum boosts the independence share to victory on a narrow margin.

    Doesn't the dominance of the SNP - a party that took almost two generations to win a single seat, and then more than another again to properly break into double digits - in Scotland ultimately detract from Labour far more than Conservatives, independence or no?
    wonderful or irrational is the wrong terms to judge this on.
    Scottish independence and UK independence are the same questions: with whom do we consider a collective "us" for which there is sufficient trust in the values that inform their decision making that we assent to common rule in line with the collective will.
    I don't see sufficient commonality that this collective will would not lead too far away from the english notion of liberalism (derived from the individual) towards the french notion of liberalism (derived from the collective), and so I do not assent to common rule.
    The scots are making essentially the same calculation (on different questions).


    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    How are you going to get that? Now that the withdrawal can probably pass Parliament, what I've heard about any trade deal (within one year or three): The main differences IIRC between the Johnson WA and the May WA are Johnson making concessions on Northern Ireland and customs while punting regulatory alignment to the non-binding aspirational declaration. The stumbling block between Johnson and the EU after withdrawal is that the EU will demand the maintenance of the level playing field plus an EU-controlled enforcement mechanism, but the Conservative MPs are largely ideologically opposed to this. Isn't withdrawal with no short-term prospect of a trade deal, or a flop trade deal that surrenders all benefits in exchange for regulatory decoupling, functionally equivalent to hard Brexit?
    If there is a thin FTA there will be very little in the way of level playing field commitments.
    Even May's deal - which included a common customs unions and the presumption of quite high alignment - only had 'non-regression', and I think Canada style FTA will have even less.
    BTW - the economic cost to hard brexit/scexit does not derive from the level playing field regs, which includes: social/environment/employment.
    No, the cost derives from technical regulation and NTB's on specific fields automotive, sanitory/phytosanitory, chemicals, etc.
    It is this that Scotland will need to consider when looking at the 60% of its 'exports' that go to rUK
    Level playing field regs are just the social penalty the EU likes to apply to 'justify' the economic integration of the single market to its more statist members.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 12-14-2019 at 10:03.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  29. #359
    Senior Member Senior Member Idaho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Exeter, England
    Posts
    6,542

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    Not sure that election was ever winnable for Labour with a divided base regarding brexit. If they'd campaigned on a remain platform they would have lost the North, and they wouldn't have convinced anyone with a leave platform (but alienated most of their core).

    Instead they chose to try and be neutral and to focus on public services and austerity - which didn't have any impact on the swing voters.

    The Tories seem to have a better strategy:

    - Say brexit lots
    - step up personal attacks
    - hide all Tory candidates (Rees mogg and gove hid under a rock for the whole campaign)
    - repeat

    Simple and effective.

    In many ways it's good that Boris has the job of brexit as it's his baby. There is no way he can blame anyone else for any failings (although you know he will).
    Last edited by Idaho; 12-14-2019 at 10:50.

  30. #360
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Election 2019

    "‘Get Brexit done’ won the vote"

    To say this is to do a grave disservice to the role Corbyn['ism] played in the result!

    i.e. asking the british society built on english individualist-liberalism (<40% GDP) to transform into collectivists on french state-liberalism (>45% GDP).
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO