RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
I cannot envisage true change in the British political landscape until someone arrives with the wit and clarity to create a new party that speaks directly to the needs and desires of voters.

Is this assuming the desires of the voters to be homogenous? Myself I can't imagine much change, partly we're a fairly conservative nation, partly there are so many thick people.

On the whole, yes. We all want more out of life for less effort.

There is a fine line between psychology of voters and sociology, and that's what we need to be treading on.

Stones of granite wrote:In his interview on BBC Breakfast, he seemed to say that those proposals are not the ones he has submitted. It'll be interesting to see if this is true or not.

It’s not Jo Swinson keeping Jeremy Corbyn from leading a government of national unity
Former Labour and ex-Conservative MPs have the same concerns — and there is no force that will make them back a Corbyn government.

Article Continues

What’s left is a row that is primarily about signalling more than anything else. Jo Swinson wants to reassure anti-Corbyn voters that the Liberal Democrats are a safe home for them that won’t result in Corbyn entering office through the back door. Corbyn wants to paint Swinson as a closet Conservative. It’s in both their interests to loudly talk up their respective positions — but the reality is that the people whose preferences will decide if a government of national unity is formed are the independents who sit for neither party; and no amount of cajoling will make them accept a government led by Corbyn.

Digby wrote:Allowing in Corbyn to fudge a deal seems as useful as letting the Tories crack on under Boris. I don't think I'd want the Lib Dems to support a figure as divisive as Jeremy, in a government of national unity there needs to be unity not lunacy

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Allowing in Corbyn to fudge a deal seems as useful as letting the Tories crack on under Boris. I don't think I'd want the Lib Dems to support a figure as divisive as Jeremy, in a government of national unity there needs to be unity not lunacy

He wouldn't be fudging a deal though - he'd just be getting an extension and calling an election. While I can understand neither side wanting to climb down off their high horse, it is incredible that "who will be Prime Minister for about 5 days" is what's holding this up.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Allowing in Corbyn to fudge a deal seems as useful as letting the Tories crack on under Boris. I don't think I'd want the Lib Dems to support a figure as divisive as Jeremy, in a government of national unity there needs to be unity not lunacy

He wouldn't be fudging a deal though - he'd just be getting an extension and calling an election. While I can understand neither side wanting to climb down off their high horse, it is incredible that "who will be Prime Minister for about 5 days" is what's holding this up.

Puja

Then he'll have no issue it not being him and will step aside for the GNU, or it's an issue, in which case it's an issue

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... t-national

It’s not Jo Swinson keeping Jeremy Corbyn from leading a government of national unity
Former Labour and ex-Conservative MPs have the same concerns — and there is no force that will make them back a Corbyn government.

Article Continues

What’s left is a row that is primarily about signalling more than anything else. Jo Swinson wants to reassure anti-Corbyn voters that the Liberal Democrats are a safe home for them that won’t result in Corbyn entering office through the back door. Corbyn wants to paint Swinson as a closet Conservative. It’s in both their interests to loudly talk up their respective positions — but the reality is that the people whose preferences will decide if a government of national unity is formed are the independents who sit for neither party; and no amount of cajoling will make them accept a government led by Corbyn.

I really hope that when push turns to shove, and it's time to actually place their votes, many would rather a few months of PM Corbyn than No Deal Brexit
However, I do think it has to be the anti-Corbyns who move. Corbyn himself is a leaver, and personally happy enough with no deal, even if he'd rather have a deal. He's also a man who has never knowingly changed his mind about a thing. The idea of him standing aside for anyone else just doesn't seem realistic. He'd rather see no deal, than a non-Corbyn PM.
Then it's a case of how many "others" will vote for him - Swinson would IMO, but the likes or Chukka, Smith, Hammond or Boles most definitely wouldn't - beyond that...

Even if everyone but the conservatives and ex-conservatives vote against Corbyn; he loses. His idealism (and lack of motivation to) won't let him stand aside for someone else.

Digby wrote:And that people just don't trust Corbyn.

Digby wrote:Also to add, I simply don't see the point of extending anything to merely hold another election. The overwhelming likelihood is we get another hung parliament, or at best the Tories or Labour creep over the line with a minuscule majority

Digby wrote:If an election doesn't establish a huge majority, 30 if not 40+ either Corbyn or Johnson (and dear god those are vomit inducing options) are still going struggle with the number of rebels either party would retain, so if an election is no way forward it's no way forward.

It could get even more muddled with Brexit taking seats off Labour, and the Lib Dems & SNP taking seats off the Tories, but we'd still be left trying to clear the biggest political issue of my lifetime with best case someone having a majority of 10 or less MPs, and even that in some form of a joint agreement or coalition is quite likely

Basically I don't follow the logic that if we can't have a referendum we should have another election, arguably we might as well all choose to jump up and down on the east or west coast depending on whether you want to the country to tilt towards or away from Europe

Digby wrote:If an election doesn't establish a huge majority, 30 if not 40+ either Corbyn or Johnson (and dear god those are vomit inducing options) are still going struggle with the number of rebels either party would retain, so if an election is no way forward it's no way forward.

It could get even more muddled with Brexit taking seats off Labour, and the Lib Dems & SNP taking seats off the Tories, but we'd still be left trying to clear the biggest political issue of my lifetime with best case someone having a majority of 10 or less MPs, and even that in some form of a joint agreement or coalition is quite likely

Basically I don't follow the logic that if we can't have a referendum we should have another election, arguably we might as well all choose to jump up and down on the east or west coast depending on whether you want to the country to tilt towards or away from Europe

Digby wrote:not sure on where I stand on kicking the can down the road with no path forwards established just 'cause no deal is a shit outcome, we could still end up with no deal, in which case we might as well crack on

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If an election doesn't establish a huge majority, 30 if not 40+ either Corbyn or Johnson (and dear god those are vomit inducing options) are still going struggle with the number of rebels either party would retain, so if an election is no way forward it's no way forward.

It could get even more muddled with Brexit taking seats off Labour, and the Lib Dems & SNP taking seats off the Tories, but we'd still be left trying to clear the biggest political issue of my lifetime with best case someone having a majority of 10 or less MPs, and even that in some form of a joint agreement or coalition is quite likely

Basically I don't follow the logic that if we can't have a referendum we should have another election, arguably we might as well all choose to jump up and down on the east or west coast depending on whether you want to the country to tilt towards or away from Europe

My argument would be if we can't have a referendum, what's left to do other than an election? What other route forward is there?

Digby wrote:not sure on where I stand on kicking the can down the road with no path forwards established just 'cause no deal is a shit outcome, we could still end up with no deal, in which case we might as well crack on

The problem is that no deal isn't an outcome - it's just a shit thing that happens and then we have to carry on with exactly the same problems to solve. The Irish border, our future relationship with Europe, our international obligations, fishing rights - none of that disappears if we crash out without a deal. Unless we decide we're never talking to Europe again, the problems still have to be solved, only with having a fucked economy and a fucked-off Europe who now have no incentive to be nice to us cause we've used all our leverage shooting both of us in the foot.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If an election doesn't establish a huge majority, 30 if not 40+ either Corbyn or Johnson (and dear god those are vomit inducing options) are still going struggle with the number of rebels either party would retain, so if an election is no way forward it's no way forward.

It could get even more muddled with Brexit taking seats off Labour, and the Lib Dems & SNP taking seats off the Tories, but we'd still be left trying to clear the biggest political issue of my lifetime with best case someone having a majority of 10 or less MPs, and even that in some form of a joint agreement or coalition is quite likely

Basically I don't follow the logic that if we can't have a referendum we should have another election, arguably we might as well all choose to jump up and down on the east or west coast depending on whether you want to the country to tilt towards or away from Europe

My argument would be if we can't have a referendum, what's left to do other than an election? What other route forward is there?

Digby wrote:not sure on where I stand on kicking the can down the road with no path forwards established just 'cause no deal is a shit outcome, we could still end up with no deal, in which case we might as well crack on

The problem is that no deal isn't an outcome - it's just a shit thing that happens and then we have to carry on with exactly the same problems to solve. The Irish border, our future relationship with Europe, our international obligations, fishing rights - none of that disappears if we crash out without a deal. Unless we decide we're never talking to Europe again, the problems still have to be solved, only with having a fucked economy and a fucked-off Europe who now have no incentive to be nice to us cause we've used all our leverage shooting both of us in the foot.

Puja

And if there's no referendum and an election leaves us in a similarly parliamentary mess?

Having an election looks a waste of time and money to me. But I've been wrong plenty often enough in the past, and I suppose not only might someone having a shocking campaign but there's the Brexit party coming in, and that young people might actually bother to vote, so predictions are even harder than usual

Puja wrote:
What's the alternative, sit here with the mess we have?

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What's the alternative, sit here with the mess we have?

Puja

I doubt we'd be sitting, the EU isn't going go for that, but yes we'd be in a mess. I would hope an election would help, mind I'd also hope Boris would negotiate a deal, I just can't see either really progressing things unless there's an actual route forward established in a referendum, though I retain my dislike for placing such a complex issue into such a reductive model, especially one wherein most voters will give scant little time to researching the various problems

Government proposes Schrodingers Irish Border, which exists when you want sovereignty and doesn’t exist when you want frictionless trade

Boris and Schrodingers Irish Border
The Irish border will exist in multiple uncertain states in which it both exists and doesn’t exist at the same time depending on what you want right this second, according to proposals unveiled today.
Two borders will coexist in a state of quantum superposition; one which prevents undesirables and European laws from crossing, and another which is highly permeable to cheap imports.

Despite seeming internally contradictory, the Department for Exiting the EU insist that quantum events have been observed at the Planck scale and can exist for a fraction of a second, so permanently applying it to the Irish border is no more ridiculous than anything else they’ve suggested.

The government expects the suggestion to be warmly received by the European Union, which similarly exists in two states at once depending on who is speaking; one where it is so weak it desperately needs British money and another where it is powerful enough to bully Britain.

“The border would exist in a theoretical state which is only resolved when you look at it,” a spokesman told us. “So if you’re driving a lorry load of car parts, for example, the border exists as a wave, as we wave you through.

“But if you’re a migrant fruit picker hoping to take a cash-in-hand job it resolves as a particle which has enough volume, density and mass as is required to stop you passing. Simple!

“Also, at high energy states, the Irish border can jump to a higher shell at Drogheda, whilst at lower energies it will manifest in the Irish sea.”

“What do Michael Gove and an electron have in common?” he added.

“They both interfere with themselves when nobody is looking.”