UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Leftbehind]

Dreading the final death toll, it looks like a f**king death trap, and it hit at the worst possible hours where not many would be alert enough to escape in time - and following the usual instructions of remaining in your flat would've sealed your fate. Just horrendous.

[Leftbehind]

I just realized the UK hasn't had a left wing government in nearly 40 years.
That is all.

Imagine a long-term splinter from the Democrats of Hillary allies when Sanders becomes their presidential nominee and how that'd enormously help the Republicans within the voting system.

[Leftbehind]

The Pew survey over EU support has some interesting data on how Brexit has soured European public opinion on the UK, with most of the nine countries surveyed dropping between 5 and 10 between now and either their 2012 or 2007 figures. Most notably though is the stark drops in Spain to +5 (-30) & Germany +6 (-26) to barely net favourable. As ever, Greece being the exception where opinion on the UK has dramatically improved to +17 (+40).

[Leftbehind]

Whilst you can pick apart Old Labour's ideological purity, I don't think it can be questioned that Labour were a broadly left-wing party then. New Labour distanced itself from that (and was openly critical of other countries left-wing parties at the time) and in doing so lost their left-wing label for either centre-left or centrist, enacting a mix of both left-wing and right-wing policies, and not departing radically from the Thatcherite consensus.

To me a "left-wing government" and a "centre-left government" are different kettle of fish.

[Leftbehind]

The Blairite rump have went silent, but it remains to be seen how on board they are. Factional amendments scheduled for the conference are in the media today:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-conference-rule-changes-date-clp-nec-national-executive-committee-labour-first-a7817121.html

Were the nationalised utilities really that good?

I don't think it can get any worse than subsidising them to the tune of billions (for investment; to allow for full service; to shoulder pension liabilities etc) and then paying again, ever-increasing fees, to allow for their profit.

From my experience the Royal Mail, whilst never perfect, has royally went down the sh**tter since privatisation.

[Leftbehind]

The Blairite rump have went silent, but it remains to be seen how on board they are. Factional amendments scheduled for the conference are in the media today:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-conference-rule-changes-date-clp-nec-national-executive-committee-labour-first-a7817121.html

I know this is an old post, but I couldn't help laughing at criticism of factional amendments from the right, when the major amendment for 2017 is the McDonnell amendment (which is now redundant)

It was directly related to the question asked whether the Blairites are on board, and that very day LF had announced a policy transparently to help deprive Corbynites of NEC control. It wasn't so much a criticism as answering the question asked. Personally I have to laugh at how up in the arms the Right has gotten over an amendment that stops future PLPs from screening out unpopular factions from a leadership, no matter how 'redundant' you think that now is.

[Leftbehind]

There's also the matter that those voting Labour who are deeply impassioned by Brexit enough that they're hostile to Labour's positioning need to be assured enough are with them that a vote for the Liberals represents something, and won't just be pissing away a vote and ensuring the Tories harder option is the order of the day.

Don't forget the Liberals have been more or less flat-lining for nearly 7 years now, and now fall below 15% in just shy of 90% of GB seats (and are below 10% in 80% of GB seats) - that's a pretty big disincentive.

[Leftbehind]

Oh boy, oh boy - Polish media at last are writing something about Corbyn!


Well, unfortunately religious newspapers are outraged that Corbyn received the Eucharist during some funeral mass. Kinda sad that such thing happened although I wonder if it was the topic outside tabloid media zone?

Not that I've seen - although I don't bother reading many. It's the first I've heard of it, and I must admit laughing at the idea this is the issue Poland has focused on.

[Leftbehind]

I loved Laura Pidcock before finding out that she voted for a £42m worth of cuts in her time on Northumberland county council. And no, nothing about her comments on Tories are in any way objectionable.

I've always found it a little unfair to blame Labour councils for cutting spending over the last 7 years - given it was a direct result of being starved of funds by the Tory government (and for some reason, the funds that Labour councils were getting fell by a lot more more than Tory councils)

Fair enough. Also: Mileslunn, learn paragraph structure, please.

Yeah, local councils are powerless to plug those gaps, extra funding would come from a non progressive tax or flogging off all public assets to make some money to keep services running - and the size of the cuts has meant that's only a stop gap. It's been completely demoralising but at least electing these councillors has meant more money and activists for the party so it could effectively fight 2017. Even outright rebellion as tried in the eighties would just see Labour councillors removed from any influence as its put into special measures.

[Leftbehind]

She is a gift that keeps on giving.

I know it's always said that this is the worst week for a government in years, but this not only beats anything from 2010-2015, but also makes the week in October where the stage fall apart and TM started coughing look like a rather funny joke.

Both the Johnson and Patel incident are damaging to our international reputation, clearly broke the ministerial code, and frankly showed that both had absolutely awful judgement. Neither one has apologized, Pretti Patel has lied about 4 times (including to No.10) and it's just making us look like a complete joke.

The fact that No.10 won't fire either one (Patel should, and most likely will get sacked tomorrow if more comes out) makes me wonder what is the point in Theresa May being Prime Minister? I could understand if she cared about Brexit, or if she wanted to stop someone becoming Leader, but she's actively destroying what's left of her reputation

How come Labour only has a 2 point lead.  Last time the Tories were in as much trouble, Labour had double digit leads which suggests to me contrary to what many think a more centrist leader could lead to a much bigger win, while Corbyn excites the base, but makes many middle of the road voters who may not like the Tories uncomfortable to switch over to Labour.

Has it escaped your attention the country is polarised at the moment? Polls show public opinion on Brexit is still evenly divided, and the collapse of third parties (be they centrist options for dissatisfied supporters to more comfortably defect to, or the soft/hard wings that weaken their side and allow for greater leads) as a consequence means the comparison is a non-starter. Were the Liberals still a viable option for many Tories (and their Brexit line not a complete repellent to most) you might see those leads, but they're not and you don't.

[Leftbehind]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

[Leftbehind]

The irony is that I (and a lot of other Labour people) have said that the Tory system for picking/removing the leader is much better than Labour's own system, when it actually appears that it has both given the party a piss poor leader, and one they can't get rid of.

Well, you and other Blairites who hate any internal party democracy.

I like Blair (hence the username) but I'm not a Blairite. FWIW the actual Blairites supported expanding party democracy with the Collins Review (which scrapped the old Electoral College). I mean as I wrote on the thread a couple of pages ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They supported democracy for their own ends - as a wider effort to dilute union influence - but it hasn't worked out as intended. That isn't to say they still do, and certainly, ignoring the fiasco of registered supporters, those holding the Tory process up as worth replicating is certainly restricted to a minority within Labour, concentrated amongst mainly Blairites.

[Leftbehind]

Again a gap is opening up between Survation (8 pt Lab lead) and the rest of the pack (avg. 2 pt Lab lead) based on youth turnout. This led to them being dismissed prior to the election.

Onto more pressing matters - if Brexit talks hinge upon Ireland forgoing their veto, DUP will need to be persuaded that a sea border makes sense. Surely they can see they'd get the best of both worlds - staying within the UK but privileged access to the SM (which will likely be a boon to their economy)? Even the unionist community support that from the polling I've seen.
 
If their intransigence on the matter means talks hit an impasse, you start to wonder if the government will fall (to say there isn't uniform support for crashing out would be an understatement).

[Leftbehind]

Lumine had posted it above mine - frustrating to see it predicts double the majority with half the lead if the roles were reversed.

If their intransigence on the matter means talks hit an impasse, you start to wonder if the government will fall (to say there isn't uniform support for crashing out would be an understatement).

There's never been a consensus about what Brexit means (yes, yes, Brexit means Brexit), even among the Tories. The cynic in me believes they'll find some way to fudge this, or that one of the major players involved (most likely the Brexit ultras or the DUP) will capitulate, but if they don't this is knife-edge level danger.

Who knows, we may even have an election in time to prevent Trump's visit

I suppose the Fixed Term Parliament act scuppers any hope that the DUP removing their support would see the government fall. It'd take the hard Brexit rebels (are there even enough?) to vote for it to reach a 2/3 no confidence. May could limp on, banking on Labour lending them enough support to ensure a soft Brexit is passed and in doing so helping to tar their name in turn (with the public opinion tide turning many within Labour might be unhappy with anything but a 2nd referendum, even the leadership might not be willing to divert from their strategy of letting the disaster engulf the Tories).

I noticed there was some interesting polls showcased on that electoral calculus site:

Immigration control is more important than free trade with the EU:-
43% Disagree (20% strongly)
39% Agree (16% strongly)
17% Don't Know

Preferred House of Lords reform:
37% Fully Elected
27% Abolition
27% Partly Elected
10% Appointed

[Leftbehind]

Thanks for the clarification on the requirements for the FTP - I'd convinced myself it was impossible.

Surely if there was a leadership challenge and May was ousted for someone more committed to a No Deal Brexit there'd be splits or lack of support from enough to whittle down their 317? I don't know how you can go from campaigning to Remain to supporting crashing out with no agreements in place...

Doubtful but could Labour convince DUP that they weren't the threat they're seen as, as at least they wouldn't be erecting borders. If they can (or rather could) work with SF I don't see how having a SF-friendly leadership makes it impossible.

[Leftbehind]

I don't know how you can go from campaigning to Remain to supporting crashing out with no agreements in place...

Ask Theresa May

I agree it's basically impossible for Labour to convince the DUP to cooperate. As I understand it, the DUP wouldn't been keen on this for several reasons:

1. They don't like Labour any more than most Tories/rightwingers do;
2. They don't like Corbyn personally, his actions during the Troubles, or his stated plans for a Corbyn-led UK government;
3. The DUP have never been very fond of the Good Friday Agreement in the first place (they did oppose it in 1998), so seeing it scuppered, even if it means a return of a hard border with the RoI is a lot less upsetting than acceding to any regulatory/constitutional break with the UK.

How things play out if there's a Tory leadership race instead of a no confidence vote is anyone's guess. Part of me would like to think that, yes, a number of the remainer Tory MPs would defect or otherwise withdraw their support in the event of a lunatic leaver becoming PM ... but then I remember this is the Tories we're talking about. They'll cling to power no matter what it takes.

May seems to be bullsh**tting her way through it, God knows what she believes. The Lunatic Leavers (good term, *yoink*) certainly have no faith that she's their (wo)man - partly because she is acquiescing to Europe's demands in hope for a deal.

Weren't Scot Cons elected as part of a softening Brexit stance? I just can't see, even if May was replaced by one, that they'd command the support of the Con parliamentary group. Many are going through with it for sake of unity already.

[Leftbehind]

Lumine had posted it above mine - frustrating to see it predicts double the majority with half the lead if the roles were reversed.

If you input the Scottish VI published the day later, the prediction for Labour's majority goes down to 4. Reverse the numbers with the Tories and they're predicted to get a majority of 48. Great electoral system.

[Leftbehind]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

lol that's a blast from the past. My opposition wasn't merely sticking it to Clegg - but because I don't consider AV whatsoever an improvement - and in fact had concerns it could be worse primarily because a) it encourages please-all centrism moreso than FPTP b) it'd shut the door on change over outrage of unfairness*.

*Minor parties, even with millions of votes, though never large enough to make it to the main challenger, get their voters used as reliable ammunition for the very party they'd deserted. Questions of fairness would be inevitably shut down with voters ability to preference under AV.

I've always been happy with proportional systems however.

[Leftbehind]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

We weren't being offered an improvement so to vote to reject was hardly an act of accelerationism.

[Leftbehind]

"Misogynistic tweets"? Was Twitter even around when these posts were made?

[Leftbehind]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

Third-party candidates are just as likely to be at the ideological extremes as they are to be in the center. You obviously had 2010 in mind when you made that post, but then 2015 came along and Labour bled quite a few votes to UKIP. I don't know if these voters would ultimately have second-preffed Labour or the Tories, but at the very least, it would have given Miliband a reason to make more populist appeals rather than try to win over the middle ground - which IIRC is exactly what you wanted.

A solid left-wing force can command a majority of the vote, if faced with a clear enough alternative. The fact that you don't believe it can shows your lack of confidence in your own values, which is another sad pathology of the left.

Even if I had enough faith it wouldn't much matter - you'd have the uphill task of convincing those in the NEC and CLPs who select the candidates that the hard-left socialist you love but who repels Tories and Liberal voters alike should be the candidate in place of the social democrat who does much better between Liberals and Tory-leaning, with the wider narrative being Labour were going to be anywhere between massacred or handily beaten. Now imagine that writ large.

True - my vote was in the context of 2010 - where I was much more disillusioned with the under-representation of my wing and my views (that were both marginalised and literally dying out within Labour), and winning f**k all representation elsewhere. But I can't imagine the 2015 election as being anything other than a calamity for the left - already trailing the Tories by a substantial amount and the biggest bloc of voters behind them are the die-hard Brexiteers who Cameron has courted with a EU referendum promise! Even in 2017 where it would've helped Labour, you'd have the scenario I painted in the above paragraph.

[Leftbehind]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

lol that's a blast from the past. My opposition wasn't merely sticking it to Clegg - but because I don't consider AV whatsoever an improvement - and in fact had concerns it could be worse primarily because a) it encourages please-all centrism moreso than FPTP b) it'd shut the door on change over outrage of unfairness*.

*Minor parties, even with millions of votes, though never large enough to make it to the main challenger, get their voters used as reliable ammunition for the very party they'd deserted. Questions of fairness would be inevitably shut down with voters ability to preference under AV.

I've always been happy with proportional systems however.

I wonder, would 2 round voting (the system France uses) be a good enough replacement for the UK? It keeps most of the good parts from FPTP and allows third parties to actually compete.

Personally I'm not fussed with any majoritarian preferential solution - I'd hate to think we'd waste an attempt to change the voting system on something so disappointing. 

[Leftbehind]

YouGov polled what people would prefer the HOC to look like, which might not be a million miles away from what a PR election would look like:-



Also, the breakdown of Labour's voters loyalties, were there to be a split (albeit when Labour were at their low ebb, with disquiet with Corbyn prompting the polling):-



Corbynites being 9% - so Die Linke levels.

[Leftbehind]

took me an embarrassing amount of time trying to work out what minor socialists were being represented by "SPK"

Socialist People's (Kettering).

[Leftbehind]

Damian Green, the (de facto) Deputy PM, has resigned.

Looks like he's been sacked. I never get why they have this stupid facade where they say 'they asked for his resignation.''

Am a tad surprised; although it's been drawn out for so long, and was done on the last day of term for the Tories. If he had resigned in November when this was all brewing it would have been a lot worse.

Will cause a slight cabinet reshuffle, and we'll need a new deputy PM. Most likely Amber Rudd

Labour has been calling for Boris Johnson to be sacked.  Any chance that will happen or would that be too risky as he seems to be the frontrunner to secede May so best to keep your enemies closest.

May knows he's a shameless opportunist who'll do anything to further himself, and wants his name muddied with this government and their handling of Brexit - she is not about to give him a consequence free exit so he can arrive upon the scene after her resignation/reputation's shot with a well-furnished reputation as a True Brexiteer, True Conservative etc.

Bar a major scandal Johnson won't be sacked. May has had too many chances to do it.

You could argue that has already happened with his help to the Iranians...