UK General Election 2019

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes I idolise him. Therefore everything is my fault.

This is an excellent example of how politics and political discussion has gone down the toilet.

Welcome to my life.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes I idolise him. Therefore everything is my fault.

This is an excellent example of how politics and political discussion has gone down the toilet.

I have committed the crime of holding a view that Johnson holds for political expediency.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support everything he has and will do.

[Idaho]

This level of debate suits some people. It suits those people who already have the money and power and don't want any scrutiny.

I have a plumber friend who is a classic working class Tory. He is brexit and anti immigration. Thinks that socialism is some crazy thing that will make him change the colour of his bin bags and give free medicine to Somalians. He works long weeks, rents his home and has no pension. He is heading, not just for poverty in his old age, but destitution. And his son is unlikely to be able to get to university or other higher institution of learning, and hence will also grow up poor. The same is true for the MAJORITY of British people. But they just don't care about it. They care about Brussels politicians or Latvians.

Rees mogg won't answer questions about his off shore money and the cabinet office won't investigate. These are multi millionaires in charge who have clearly benefited from our society to an extraordinary degree, who are twisting the rules to make sure they remain the elite. And idiots who are essentially the shit on his shoes, cheer him on.

[Furunculus]

as an accidental follow on to idaho's post above - an interesting view on the priorities of the C1/C2 demographic:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b02947481682c0

[Idaho]

I have committed the crime of holding a view that Johnson holds for political expediency.

Therefore I wholeheartedly support everything he has and will do.

Johnson is 100% about expediency. The expediency of himself. I can't remember a more self centered PM. Blair perhaps, but he at least spread the benefits around in his messianic zeal. Johnson would render us all down for tallow.

[Pannonian]

Anti-EU articles disseminated by such Kremlin-sanctioned media outlets as RT and Sputnik in the run-up to the referendum campaign are cited in the report. Social media analysis that was presented to the digital, culture, media and sport committee last year revealed that articles published by the Russian sites had four times more social media impact before the Brexit vote than the official leave campaigns.

More than 260 articles posted by RT and Sputnik in the six months prior to the referendum were shared so widely on Twitter that they could have been seen up to 134m times.

By comparison, tweets from Vote Leave and Leave.eu — the two biggest pro-Brexit campaign groups — generated potential impressions of 33m and 14m.

Intelligence officials who have either seen or been briefed on the document said: “The government’s refusal to publish the report has been very damaging to the British intelligence community, because it suggests that we have something major to cover up.”

Sunday Times article on report Johnson is refusing to publish. Intelligence people want it published.

Senior Whitehall source: “Downing Street are concerned that if this emerges it would raise questions about the validity of the referendum result, which is the central issue in the general election campaign & could compromise the Tories pitch to the electorate to get Brexit done.”

Tom Harper is the Home Affairs correspondent for the Sunday Times.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Johnson is 100% about expediency. The expediency of himself. I can't remember a more self centered PM. Blair perhaps, but he at least spread the benefits around in his messianic zeal. Johnson would render us all down for tallow.

I'm starting to think both Johnson and Corbyn suffer from some sort of fundamental personality disorder. In the former case Johnson seems to believe what he says when he says it, but what he believes changes at his convenience. In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

That's my most charitable interpretation of their characters.

Jo Swinson, on the other hand has simply gone back on what she said previously - having actively campaigned for a Brexit referendum before it was even a practical possibility she now openly calls for the annulling of the result.

[Pannonian]

I'm starting to think both Johnson and Corbyn suffer from some sort of fundamental personality disorder. In the former case Johnson seems to believe what he says when he says it, but what he believes changes at his convenience. In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

That's my most charitable interpretation of their characters.

Jo Swinson, on the other hand has simply gone back on what she said previously - having actively campaigned for a Brexit referendum before it was even a practical possibility she now openly calls for the annulling of the result.

That's the policy if the Lib Dems manage to get a majority. If the votes change to the extent that the Lib Dems gain a majority in the Commons, wouldn't you say that they'll have the mandate for it? They got 7.4% of the vote and 12 MPs last time, and to be in a position to implement that policy they'll need a net gain of at least +314 this time round.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which bits of sovereignty though? We're still subject to WTO rules, despite Brexiteers portraying that as a no-rule complete sovereignty default. And as such, other countries impose their own demands on us, such as India, Canada, Australia and most notably the US already have. The US in particular has a list of demands on areas that the EU has not touched, that the UK populace generally see as holy cows.

No nation or state or even individual holds absolute sovereignty over their life. The other blokes, and random events, get a vote in the decision as well. The normal flow of international relations involve parties haggling back and forth over an issue until they reach an acceptable settlement, but the act of negotiation and compromise does not require you diminish your own ability to decide for yourself (ves) whether or not such a settlement is acceptable. I think the point of the Exit fanciers was that as much of that sovereignty as possible should be retained in the "mother of all parliaments" and that allowing the EU to require all members to align their internal policies, regulations, etc. would be an inappropriate diminishment of that degree of "self-rule" that has be enacted by UKer's for themselves over the centuries. As I noted above, how much of a cost will be paid so as to preserver/return this degree of self-determination as well as how much it had actually been diminished, are both open to debate.

More importantly, Brexit supporters have changed the style of discourse in the UK, that have dumped all the traditional checks and balances in favour of the centralised executive (you've seen all the demands here that the executive should not be subject to the legislative or the law). Imagine if the US has a popular executive that persists but does not have a super majority, but their supporters demand that both Houses, all the courts, and every other check on the executive should step out of their way. That's what we have in the UK.

Both of our major political parties have been doing this since the mid-90s (arguably earlier), which is why our USA politics is such a polarized mess at this time. We have thesis and antithesis with virtually no effort at synthesis. Absent the Cold War to keep us at least vaguely consistent (and I would not go further than vaguely) in our foreign policy, it helps explain why the USA has been such a poor ally of late.

And what makes it even more cringing, is that supporters of this in the UK then have gall to take the high horse on Trump. At the very least, even if my cause is lost, I will hold the supporters of Brexit to the consequences of their decision and continued support for such, letting them know at every abysmal step that they are continuing to support this and what they are doing to support it, and letting them see that the despised Donald Trump and his antics is exactly what they are supporting in the UK.

I shouldn't have had to do this of course. The leader of the opposition should have been leading the way. But Corbyn is a useless who is just as bad as the Brexiteers, who are of course his fellows.

Indeed, your politics do appear to be as polarized as ours have become. In these polarized conditions, those who seem to rise to the leadership level are either those for whom power is the sole point (I include both of our 2016 major party nominees in this labeling) or somewhat too zealous in their pursuit of an ideological position at the expense of the "other" viewpoint.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's the policy if the Lib Dems manage to get a majority. If the votes change to the extent that the Lib Dems gain a majority in the Commons, wouldn't you say that they'll have the mandate for it? They got 7.4% of the vote and 12 MPs last time, and to be in a position to implement that policy they'll need a net gain of at least +314 this time round.

Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

[Pannonian]

Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

So what kind of policies does a government with a majority have a mandate for? And if a government does not have a majority, does the policy still have a mandate?

[Montmorency]

No nation or state or even individual holds absolute sovereignty over their life. The other blokes, and random events, get a vote in the decision as well. The normal flow of international relations involve parties haggling back and forth over an issue until they reach an acceptable settlement, but the act of negotiation and compromise does not require you diminish your own ability to decide for yourself (ves) whether or not such a settlement is acceptable. I think the point of the Exit fanciers was that as much of that sovereignty as possible should be retained in the "mother of all parliaments" and that allowing the EU to require all members to align their internal policies, regulations, etc. would be an inappropriate diminishment of that degree of "self-rule" that has be enacted by UKer's for themselves over the centuries. As I noted above, how much of a cost will be paid so as to preserver/return this degree of self-determination as well as how much it had actually been diminished, are both open to debate.

Limiting comment to this, it should be pointed out that the paleos on the American Right have wanted out of the United Nations since accession, and all manner of other organizations such as the WTO if I recall right. Trump has been delivering some red meat on the UN throughout his term.

They want bad things for bad reasons and they don't even understand causality. What was I talking about again?

Oh come on. Even if the Lib-Dems get an absolute majority they won't get the same percentage of the vote as in the referendum, and the election probably won't have as high turnout.

So, no, no mandate for overturning the referendum.

If you don't like the results of referndums you shouldn't call for them to be held. Swinson argued the British people themselves deserved a say - now she argues the opposite.

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what kind of policies does a government with a majority have a mandate for? And if a government does not have a majority, does the policy still have a mandate?

The Referendum had long-standing cross-party support.

[Furunculus]

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I strongly reject the position that an inspecific nonbinding referendum confers a mandate overriding a contemporary landslide electoral result gained on the basis of longstanding and specific campaign promises.

See above.

The cross-party support was crucial to the legitimacy of the referendum, it was only "non-binding" because there's no legal way to make a binding referendum in the UK.

[Pannonian]

The Referendum had long-standing cross-party support.

And if it no longer has cross-party support, then what?

[Pannonian]

i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

I expect the loyal opposition to offer opposition to the loyal government's plans. Is this reasonable?

[Montmorency]

See above.

The cross-party support was crucial to the legitimacy of the referendum, it was only "non-binding" because there's no legal way to make a binding referendum in the UK.

Had being the operative word.

i can accept that point.
may i expect continuity-remain to walk small in the weeks and months following december 13th?

Depends on the exact arrangement. To say nothing else, if Johnson carries the election and still can't produce a final result, he can hardly proclaim "set and match" in the new cycle.

I have to hand it Farage, I'm not following UK news at all currently but in concept I can't see how the Brexit Party contesting only Labour seats doesn't:

1. Kill any prospects for a strong Labour performance
2. Position Farage to maintain influence over the Conservative government

Sad days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And if it no longer has cross-party support, then what?

Really?

Hold another one if you're that stuck.

[Pannonian]

Had being the operative word.



Depends on the exact arrangement. To say nothing else, if Johnson carries the election and still can't produce a final result, he can hardly proclaim "set and match" in the new cycle.

I have to hand it Farage, I'm not following UK news at all currently but in concept I can't see how the Brexit Party contesting only Labour seats doesn't:

1. Kill any prospects for a strong Labour performance
2. Position Farage to maintain influence over the Conservative government

Sad days.

THE GREAT BREXIT PARTY SWINDLE

TLDR: Nigel Farage has taken a load of money off people for the chance of becoming a Brexit party candidate, only to inform them they would not be candidates after all. All the money is non-refundable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strong Tory victory in the upcoming election seems likely.

There will be a no deal Brexit, the withdrawal agreement will likely fail or will never be followed up on.
The UK will see economic pain and people will likely switch to a Labor government in 2024, following the removal of Corbyn as party leader.

During this half a decade of getting kicked around on the world stage, the UK will likely splinter apart and England will rejoin the UK at a future date with no benefits or perks.

[Greyblades]

So this is what the americans feel when I comment on thier elections huh?

Whether the tories go along with the deal is in question, largely dependant on the performance of the brexit party IMO, but its leaning towards taking the deal and the next few governments will spend time chipping away at the unpopular parts.

The labor party are dead in the water, even assuming they are lucky enough to follow the lines of the previous labour resergeance; they're not coming back in such a small timeframe.

Whether we get kicked about depends on the next government's ability to hold out against the attempts at punishment from the more globalistic inclined parts of the world market, assuming the americans dont go democrat (fat chance, they're even more screwed than labor) I dont think it will be that bad.

[Idaho]

...In the latter case Corbyn seems to believe that anyone who agrees with his views on a given topic is above suspicion, hence surrounding himself with left-leaning antisemites.

Surrounding himself with anti Semites? Not just over egging the pudding, but adding custard, mayonnaise and extra eggs. While there are some loons in the party, the whole thing had been deliberately orchestrated by people who really care about:

- Israel holding the authority to discuss and condemn and control all information and discussion related to Jews
- politicians who are avowed centrists
- perhaps a distant third is caring about the issue of anti semitism.

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So this is what the americans feel when I comment on thier elections huh?

Whether the tories go along with the deal is in question, largely dependant on the performance of the brexit party IMO, but its leaning towards taking the deal and the next few governments will spend time chipping away at the unpopular parts.

The labor party are dead in the water, even assuming they are lucky enough to follow the lines of the previous labour resergeance; they're not coming back in such a small timeframe.

Whether we get kicked about depends on the next government's ability to hold out against the attempts at punishment from the more globalistic inclined parts of the world market, assuming the americans dont go democrat (fat chance, they're even more screwed than labor) I dont think it will be that bad.

We probably all feel a hint "possessive" about our own elections.

Our election here is too close to call. Popular numbers favor the Democrats but our state-by-state electoral college system obviates much of that. Winning California by a million vote margin is no better than winning it by 10,000. The states where the numbers are closest (WI, MI, OH, PA, VA, FL, NV, NM) often feature goodly cadres of Trump supporters. Trump could very readily repeat his minority popular/majority electoral college win from 2016. Were the Dems to put forward a nominee who could garner mostly heart-felt support from BOTH their progressive wing and the union/working class then Trump goes down to defeat. So far (it is still earlyish), the Dems have yet to center on a candidate who has that broad of an appeal. We shall see.

[InsaneApache]

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

Maybe that's because the far right and the far left are essentially the same?

[Idaho]

Maybe that's because the far right and the far left are essentially the same?

Not really. One side is about creating a powerful state that (somehow) doesn't become a dictatorship, for the (proposed) benefit of all. Removing powerful capitalist elites and prioritising ordinary people.

The other side is essentially the political arm of the same powerful elites, but dressed up as ordinary people - farage being a glorious example of a wealthy banker and political operator pretending that he has a great affinity for poor people in Sunderland. Or Yaxley-lennon who attempts the same con by calling himself Tommy Robinson.

[Pannonian]

Tory official twitter account renames itself FactcheckUK to post attack tweets.

[rory_20_uk]

Tory official twitter account renames itself FactcheckUK to post attack tweets.

GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surrounding himself with anti Semites? Not just over egging the pudding, but adding custard, mayonnaise and extra eggs. While there are some loons in the party, the whole thing had been deliberately orchestrated by people who really care about:

- Israel holding the authority to discuss and condemn and control all information and discussion related to Jews
- politicians who are avowed centrists
- perhaps a distant third is caring about the issue of anti semitism.

And if we are targeting anti semitism in the political arena, why is it just the labour party? The right has long enjoyed the nods, winks and whispers about Jews. The far right, now co-opted into the brexiteers, are vociferous "Rothschild/nwo" nutters.

Oh come now, Ken Livingstone, that guy from the NEC claiming the whole thing was a Jewish cover-up and he's "never" seen any antisemitism in the part, the "antiracism" activisit who actually got thrown out for being antisemitic.

All Corbyn allies.

To say nothing of his links to Hamas.

[Greyblades]

GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

Thank God for that. Noone can be trusted to dictate what is truth and what is not, let alone trusted with power of punishing those that deviate from thier version of reality.

Such power given to an organization would see it usurped within a political cycle like blair did with the house of lords and turned into a ministry of truth for whichever party or interest has managed to pack it the most, if not outright purged and replaced by the PM like happened to the bbc under blair.

As it lies now you'd be giving terrifying reality to the cchq's name change.