Westminster Politics

Raulduke said:
Click to expand...


I don’t know who this guy is, but I said basically exactly this just a week or so ago. He’s clearly a plagiarizing cnut. :mad:

Although actually his conclusion is wrong. Boris doesn’t want an election before the leave date, he wants it after the Remain parliament has forced a new referendum. Then he gets to both avoid the damage of leaving AND channel the anger of the leave crowd.
 
Volumiza said:
No. They just aren't driven blindly by one ideology unlike those that stick strictly to the right and left. Hey, the day I figure out how to divine the course I'll let you know.



That's exactly why I used the examples I did. All newspaper readers read what they read because they like their views reflected back at them and they all soak them up.



I actually believe clumsy and inappropriate rhetoric doesn't always make someone inherently racist. I may get lambasted for that view but hey. We don't know if he is actually racist any more than we know Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic. It's just conjecture for those that want to believe it.
Click to expand...
In reverse order: had Corbyn at any point referred to yids or some such you may have a point. He has not. It seems to me to be a distinction beyond meaning to suggest that those who speak like a racist are not. But then I lack the clarity of mind of a centrist. I think a high profile politician such as Johnson is beyond the point where clumsy language is an acceptable excuse.

I understand that people will read media that reflect their views. However, to compare the Guardian to the Mail is ludicrous. There is not an equivalence due to their politics.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
In reverse order: had Corbyn at any point referred to yids or some such you may have a point. He has not. It seems to me to be a distinction beyond meaning to suggest that those who speak like a racist are not. But then I lack the clarity of mind of a centrist. I think a high profile politician such as Johnson is beyond the point where clumsy language is an acceptable excuse.

I understand that people will read media that reflect their views. However, to compare the Guardian to the Mail is ludicrous. There is not an equivalence due to their politics.
Click to expand...

There's no point trying to talk sense, Johnson cares about nothing apart from his own political career and how he can advance it. Now he's going to do all he can to cling on to power for as long as possible.
 
I can't believe I saw BJ claiming this will be the best place on earth. Since when did British Exceptionalism become a thing? I thought that went after the 50s.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
In reverse order: had Corbyn at any point referred to yids or some such you may have a point. He has not. It seems to me to be a distinction beyond meaning to suggest that those who speak like a racist are not. But then I lack the clarity of mind of a centrist. I think a high profile politician such as Johnson is beyond the point where clumsy language is an acceptable excuse.

I understand that people will read media that reflect their views. However, to compare the Guardian to the Mail is ludicrous. There is not an equivalence due to their politics.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that a high profile politician should be unaccountable for their words and I'm not excusing Boris. I'm just not totally convinced he's inherently a racist person.

And i'm not making a comparison or equivalence between the guardian and the mail. Just stating that the readers of both will choose to believe what is written in them simply because they want to. To each set of readers it is their truth.
 
Kentonio said:
I don’t know who this guy is, but I said basically exactly this just a week or so ago. He’s clearly a plagiarizing cnut. :mad:

Although actually his conclusion is wrong. Boris doesn’t want an election before the leave date, he wants it after the Remain parliament has forced a new referendum. Then he gets to both avoid the damage of leaving AND channel the anger of the leave crowd.
Click to expand...

I think this attributes far more machinations to Boris' strategy than is realistic or accurate. This is a man who got knifed by Michael Gove ffs.

And there are massive gaps in this supposed strategy:
1. to eat the brexit party vote you'd have to go to the country on a manifesto that promises no-deal within that parliament - that is a strategy that probably tops you out at 30% of the vote
2. the strategy relies on parliament stopping no-deal. something it actually failed to do in April, Theresa May just bailed.

Basically I think its far more likely that he should be read at face value: he is going to ask the EU for things they cannot give, when they refuse he is going to pursue no-deal Brexit.



It's one thing to do this when you can promise all things to all people. When you are actually in government and have to choose a type of Brexit, it won't work
 
Kentonio said:
And there are massive gaps in this supposed strategy:
1. to eat the brexit party vote you'd have to go to the country on a manifesto that promises no-deal within that parliament - that is a strategy that probably tops you out at 30% of the vote
2. the strategy relies on parliament stopping no-deal. something it actually failed to do in April, Theresa May just bailed.

Basically I think its far more likely that he should be read at face value: he is going to ask the EU for things they cannot give, when they refuse he is going to pursue no-deal Brexit.
Click to expand...

He's already going full speed for the Brexit party voters. He's packed his cabinet with hardcore leavers and set out a very clear stall for no-deal (with the silly caveat of 'we'll ask for a deal they cant give us first!'). He knows damn well though that parliament will not allow a no deal. There is no version of the parliamentary maths that supports that. So at some point they are going to step in and prevent it, and barring cancelling Brexit (which they certainly don't have the balls to do) the only realistic options are either a no confidence vote or a vote on a referendum.

The remain Tories are much more likely to vote for a referendum than they are to simply toppling their own government, and both options require Tory votes, so it seems logical that they'll push in that direction, and it seems equally likely that Boris won't fight too hard to prevent such a vote, given that the alternative would be an early departure from Downing Street for him (plus he really doesn't care about Leave ideologically).

So if it goes to a referendum, Britain will likely vote to stay after all that's happened and the polling over the last year. Boris then gets to furiously denounce everyone who supported a new referendum, steal back all the Brexit Party voters by channeling their rage, and very likely quickly hold (and win) a new general election with some vague promises (lies) about looking again at EU departure/some new referendum blah blah.

Boris is not a stupid man, and neither are the Tory strategists. They can read the political winds and polling perfectly competently and right now there really aren't many paths to Boris remaining as PM for very long. The above is one of the few choices he has available. It's risky as hell, and could collapse around his ears, but it could also work.
 
The Uk economy is highly dependent on imports from the EU and the UK manufacturing industry is highly dependent on the supply chain from the EU. Furthermore, the majority of the House of Commons had already voted against a no deal Brexit. If the EU & BoJo are true to their word about the backstop and BoJo is true to his word about leaving the EU on the 31st of October come what may, then the UK will head towards a constitutional & economic crisis after the 31st. Furthermore, devolution of the UK will become ever more likely. The good news about these scenarios is that BoJo should be out of a job within 12 months.
 
How did parliament vote against no deal? I thought they only voted against being shut down right before the extension expires?
 
do.ob said:
How did parliament vote against no deal? I thought they only voted against being shut down right before the extension expires?
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m not familiar with all the technicalities, but I was under the impression that parliament voted against a no deal Brexit under any circumstances on the 13th of March?
 
Rams said:
Maybe I’m not familiar with all the technicalities, but I was under the impression that parliament voted against a no deal Brexit under any circumstances on the 13th of March?
Click to expand...

Afaik that one was just UK politicians chasing unicorns again:



In a night of high drama in the Commons, MPs surprised the government and voted by 312 to 308 to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances.

The vote is not binding - under current law the UK could still leave without a deal on 29 March.

[...]

A European Commission spokesperson said: "There are only two ways to leave the EU: with or without a deal. The EU is prepared for both.

"To take no deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal - you have to agree to a deal.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47562995
 
do.ob said:
Afaik that one was just UK politicians chasing unicorns again:



In a night of high drama in the Commons, MPs surprised the government and voted by 312 to 308 to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances.

The vote is not binding - under current law the UK could still leave without a deal on 29 March.

[...]

A European Commission spokesperson said: "There are only two ways to leave the EU: with or without a deal. The EU is prepared for both.

"To take no deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal - you have to agree to a deal.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47562995
Click to expand...

What are the consequences of the government going ahead with a no deal Brexit on the 31st despite parliament voting against a no deal Brexit?
 
Rams said:
What are the consequences of the government going ahead with a no deal Brexit on the 31st despite parliament voting against a no deal Brexit?
Click to expand...

That's what people don't seem to understand. Goverment doesn't have to go ahead with anything. No deal brexit was already set in motion years ago, when art 50 was triggered, it's not an active decision that anyone has to take anymore. It's the automatic default. To prevent it you have to ratify May's deal, which parliament themselves refused three times.
 
Rams said:
What are the consequences of the government going ahead with a no deal Brexit on the 31st despite parliament voting against a no deal Brexit?
Click to expand...

I would expect a vote of no confidence in government is there only option. Legislation is alreafy in place for no deal. Its the default. To change that no legislation needs to be put forward before 10th September for it to make it on the books in time I understand. I doubt it would pass in any case.
 
fergieisold said:
Nothing to do with the opinion that the Conservatives are the more sensible option when it comes to the economy. You can argue about the impact of that on the less privileged.



There's no conclusive evidence that austerity has caused 100,000 deaths. The Conservatives have been very poor on mental health in my opinion which is underfunded, hopefully this changes!



Spending without context means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Look into the 'context' of their spending if you like. Look into the increasing rate of national debt over the last 9 years too. Then add the context of reduced corporation tax. China being handed the keys to a nuclear power plant in Somerset. The shambles that is Brexit (whether you want in it out you can't argue it has not been an absolute shambles).

If you think Conservatives are the sensible option for the economy after the last 3 years of uncertainty you must be high off Tory kool aid.
 
Olde man yells at ye cloudes
 
SirAF said:
The Oxford comma is great. Double space, however, is shit.
Click to expand...

The Oxford comma is ugly but at least there are plenty of style guides that recommend it. Double spacing after a full stop is backwards and pointless in nearly all cases.
 
Isn't the spelling stuff just deflection? Get the country laughing about your grammar instructions while you're sacrificing their livelihoods to satisfy your ideology...


It's out of the Trump playbook.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Look into the 'context' of their spending if you like. Look into the increasing rate of national debt over the last 9 years too. Then add the context of reduced corporation tax. China being handed the keys to a nuclear power plant in Somerset. The shambles that is Brexit (whether you want in it out you can't argue it has not been an absolute shambles).

If you think Conservatives are the sensible option for the economy after the last 3 years of uncertainty you must be high off Tory kool aid.
Click to expand...

Well I always think relative merit is important. There is no viable opposition at the moment. The sooner Labour get shot of that lunatic Corbyn the better chance there is for a change in government.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Look into the 'context' of their spending if you like. Look into the increasing rate of national debt over the last 9 years too. Then add the context of reduced corporation tax. China being handed the keys to a nuclear power plant in Somerset. The shambles that is Brexit (whether you want in it out you can't argue it has not been an absolute shambles).

If you think Conservatives are the sensible option for the economy after the last 3 years of uncertainty you must be high off Tory kool aid.
Click to expand...

This is used so often to complain about the Conservative government and sorry, but it shows such a huge lack of understanding of how economies work.

Debt, and the things it is raised to pay for, is issued as long term commitments stretching decades in some cases. It can't just be switched off. The UK has debt obligations out to over 50 years from now and spending commitments for years into the future. These need to be tapered back gradually and that is exactly what has happened, at least until the Brexit mess started.

Total national debt is the laziest way to assess the health of the economy. Look at things like the deficit or the debt/GDP trend if you want to see how it really looks.
 
11101 said:
This is used so often to complain about the Conservative government and sorry, but it shows such a huge lack of understanding of how economies work.

Debt, and the things it is raised to pay for, is issued as long term commitments stretching decades in some cases. It can't just be switched off. The UK has debt obligations out to over 50 years from now and spending commitments for years into the future. These need to be tapered back gradually and that is exactly what has happened, at least until the Brexit mess started.

Total national debt is the laziest way to assess the health of the economy. Look at things like the deficit or the debt/GDP trend if you want to see how it really looks.
Click to expand...
I think some of the posters that bring up increasing Tory debt genuinely don't understand the difference between debt and deficit, whilst others actually know but still bring it up as they think it will seem a good point to the masses, which is pretty disingenuous of them of course, but that's politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.