Well we got the closest equivalent really, a rejection of No Deal in law and a push for an extension with a GE resolving after October. Not ideal but compromise I suppose
Well we got the closest equivalent really, a rejection of No Deal in law and a push for an extension with a GE resolving after October. Not ideal but compromise I suppose
I suspect this oncoming election is going to see more than its fair share of tactical voting.
I think the one thing I wouldn't do to flip a Tory seat is vote BXP.
ETA: Disclaimer: Of course I live in a Tory safe seat, where the Lib Dem challenger is something like 6000 votes behind, so really it doesn't matter what I'd do.
I don't blame the Lib Dems at all for their approach to Corbyn. He hasn't exactly been consistent about his messaging on Brexit and the Lib Dems are going to be massively paranoid about entering coalitions that could go wrong - it's a political miracle that they've regained the support that they have, can you imagine what would happen (to them and the country) if they supported Corbyn for leader to prevent No Deal and he walked us into No Deal anyway?
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
I don't blame the Lib Dems at all for their approach to Corbyn. He hasn't exactly been consistent about his messaging on Brexit and the Lib Dems are going to be massively paranoid about entering coalitions that could go wrong - it's a political miracle that they've regained the support that they have, can you imagine what would happen (to them and the country) if they supported Corbyn for leader to prevent No Deal and he walked us into No Deal anyway?
Yup. Corbyn has dug his own grave on this issue. He's shown himself to be unreliable on the issue.
If you see people criticizing the Lib Dems less for their view on this issue, it's probably because they also don't see Corbyn as reliable.
To the point where they would take No Deal over a Corbyn PM, apparently. Which is a fucking joke. No Deal Brexit, the worst thing ever! Apart from a caretaker Corbyn PM! Yeah alright then
You could flip that around and say the same of Corbyn - he said he'd do anything to stop no deal, apart from letting someone else be caretaker PM.
1) the gnu/caretaker gov was always a wild fantasy that would never have worked
2) corbyns refusal to (theoretically) stand down for someone else is probably something to do with the fact that hes the loto, the only non-tory party leader who could realistically head up a gov after a ge, and to pass over the role of a 'caretaker' pm to someone else is to admit that he can be budged for somebody who can deliver a tiny fraction of the number of votes he can. this is not a clever political strategy
3) labour would be delivering, what, 7.5x more votes than any other party in a potential gnu? what makes you think those labour votes would be happy to back anyone other than the leader of their own party?
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
Their policy has been restated today and it's just as ridiculous as usual:
What the lib dems need to do is say, "Look, are you sick of hearing about Brexit? If we actually leave without a deal, or with one, we will then need to spend a decade negotiating the most complex and important trade deal in uk history, with a constant press to just rejoin Europe instead. The only way for this all to end is to cancel article 50 and stay!"
What the lib dems need to do is say, "Look, are you sick of hearing about Brexit? If we actually leave without a deal, or with one, we will then need to spend a decade negotiating the most complex and important trade deal in uk history, with a constant press to just rejoin Europe instead. The only way for this all to end is to cancel article 50 and stay!"
The problem is that this isn't going to happen. Can you really see people like Farage or Rees-Mogg just shutting up and going home if we manage to cancel Brexit? They'll be screaming about it for decades.
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
I disagree. I think that their position (2nd Referendum in any circumstance, which Lib Dems also said until... Today) is reasonable. Would I prefer Revoke? Yes. But so what if the Lib Dems say they'll revoke if they get a majority, they definitely won't.
Their policy was significant insofar as a National Unity Gov needed them. And within that context they took the view of this is a really good idea, but if by far the largest party in that coalition thinks their leader will be the caretaker pm, they can stuff it! To which I say, clearly not that important to you then, is it, and so sod off
What the lib dems need to do is say, "Look, are you sick of hearing about Brexit? If we actually leave without a deal, or with one, we will then need to spend a decade negotiating the most complex and important trade deal in uk history, with a constant press to just rejoin Europe instead. The only way for this all to end is to cancel article 50 and stay!"
The problem is that this isn't going to happen. Can you really see people like Farage or Rees-Mogg just shutting up and going home if we manage to cancel Brexit? They'll be screaming about it for decades.
We're here forever.
Not true, because they can be sent back to the fringe where their supporters can die of old age. Brexit is a minority position, becoming more of one every day.
The Lib Dems shafted the country the last time they were in power, I'll be damned if I support them getting into power again. Even then, I'd accept power sharing within proportion of Votes in Westminster if they were prepared to accept that they were a minor party supporting a broad coalition where one party gave most of the Seats, but they wouldn't! They wanted a government of NU but entirely on their terms.
I'd accept power sharing within proportion of Votes in Westminster if they were prepared to accept that they were a minor party supporting a broad coalition where one party gave most of the Seats, but they wouldn't!
Accepting that they were a minor party supporting a coalition where one party gave most of the seats is why they shafted the country the last time they were in power
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
I disagree. I think that their position (2nd Referendum in any circumstance, which Lib Dems also said until... Today) is reasonable. Would I prefer Revoke? Yes. But so what if the Lib Dems say they'll revoke if they get a majority, they definitely won't.
Their policy was significant insofar as a National Unity Gov needed them. And within that context they took the view of this is a really good idea, but if by far the largest party in that coalition thinks their leader will be the caretaker pm, they can stuff it! To which I say, clearly not that important to you then, is it, and so sod off
You say you think their position is reasonable but you skip over the actual relevant part of their position to this discussion. It's not just "have a 2nd referendum" because on top of that it's also "they won't commit to which side of that referendum they will back". And that's the whole problem. They are literally saying they can't be trusted to back Remain.
The Lib Dems shafted the country the last time they were in power, I'll be damned if I support them getting into power again. Even then, I'd accept power sharing within proportion of Votes in Westminster if they were prepared to accept that they were a minor party supporting a broad coalition where one party gave most of the Seats, but they wouldn't! They wanted a government of NU but entirely on their terms.
And Labour has been shafting the UK since before the Brexit vote even dropped by milquetoast 7 out of 10 opposition to Brexit and then further shitting the bed as the opposition party for years now, against the most incompetent, cretinous and disorganized Tory government in a long time. And that's when they weren't actively backing Brexit itself, like with their moves re: Article 50. A huge part of the issue has been that Labour has just sucked at their job of opposing the Tories.
To the point where they would take No Deal over a Corbyn PM, apparently. Which is a fucking joke. No Deal Brexit, the worst thing ever! Apart from a caretaker Corbyn PM! Yeah alright then
You could flip that around and say the same of Corbyn - he said he'd do anything to stop no deal, apart from letting someone else be caretaker PM.
1) the gnu/caretaker gov was always a wild fantasy that would never have worked
2) corbyns refusal to (theoretically) stand down for someone else is probably something to do with the fact that hes the loto, the only non-tory party leader who could realistically head up a gov after a ge, and to pass over the role of a 'caretaker' pm to someone else is to admit that he can be budged for somebody who can deliver a tiny fraction of the number of votes he can. this is not a clever political strategy
3) labour would be delivering, what, 7.5x more votes than any other party in a potential gnu? what makes you think those labour votes would be happy to back anyone other than the leader of their own party?
Didn't those Labour votes literally support a motion of no confidence against Corbyn just a few years ago.
While I don't see what sort of reasonable Brexit Labour would come up with for a second referendum, I do consider the second referendum a more sustainable approach than revoking Article 50 outright. While I hate Labour's dithering on the matter of what they'd campaign for, I am convinced that just clicking the big "Cancel" button would simply make the hardline Conservatives and Farage followers win an unequivocal majority next time round.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The hardliners will be emboldened by us staying in the EU, come what may. And given what a shock the first referendum result was, the assumption that remain wins second time around seems especially hubristic.
Youtube went and recommended me a video from the Telegraph about Harriet Harman wanting to be Speaker and pitches it as "Another Pro-EU speaker ready to disrupt Brexit" and just bleugh
Bleugh I say
I wish Youtube's "Breaking News" function would just stop
I'm not assuming that Remain would win. I'm hoping it would, but I also think that if after the farce of the last three years, after Maybot and BoJo and the whole clown car a majority of British voters want to leave the EU, no matter what cost, if young people can't get off their arses and actually vote in their interest, then so be it, and the EU should wash their hands of it all. If, in the face of all the evidence, a majority elects to cut off their nose, then I don't see how this can be avoided in the long run.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+2
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I'm not assuming that Remain would win. I'm hoping it would, but I also think that if after the farce of the last three years, after Maybot and BoJo and the whole clown car a majority of British voters want to leave the EU, no matter what cost, if young people can't get off their arses and actually vote in their interest, then so be it, and the EU should wash their hands of it all.
that wouldn't end anything
also it would hose a ton of people who did everything they could to stop it
While I don't see what sort of reasonable Brexit Labour would come up with for a second referendum, I do consider the second referendum a more sustainable approach than revoking Article 50 outright. While I hate Labour's dithering on the matter of what they'd campaign for, I am convinced that just clicking the big "Cancel" button would simply make the hardline Conservatives and Farage followers win an unequivocal majority next time round.
also as much as i and most of us here hate it - leave won the referendum! you cant just wish away the fact that there is a big bloc of british voters that wants to get out of the eu and their votes will get you just as elected as the votes of folk who want to remain in the eu
in the same way that brexit on 31/10 would not be the end of the question on how do we trade/travel/deal with european countries, a 2nd ref leading to remain/a50 revocation will not mean that everyone who wants to leave the eu will just go 'oh alright then, guess thats over with' - this is going to be a central question for the uk for the foreseeable future and you cant go making any decisions without considering what the long-term ramifications are. especially if your plans go wrong! that kind of short-termism is exactly what brought the uk to this point
If you think the issue won't go away any time soon, then killing Article 50 can be a good move since it prevents Leave being the default action that happens should no one else come up with an alternative. It forces the Brexiters to fight all over again to get the process started and hold it together.
also as much as i and most of us here hate it - leave won the referendum!
My thinking is that, yes, Leave did win, but it was a fraudulent win. The question is how many people who voted Leave have come to accept this since and how many people on the fence have gone Leave in the meantime, for whatever reason. There is ample reason to say that the result of the first referendum should be discounted, but to act as if there never was a referendum in the first place strikes me as considerably more dangerous than doing a second referendum against the background of the last three years.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I'd accept power sharing within proportion of Votes in Westminster if they were prepared to accept that they were a minor party supporting a broad coalition where one party gave most of the Seats, but they wouldn't!
Accepting that they were a minor party supporting a coalition where one party gave most of the seats is why they shafted the country the last time they were in power
Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
Within the context of a gov of NU formed solely to deal with a crisis I wouldn't calling them shafting the country.
Like, in a surprising twist yes I would in fact judge the Lib Dems on what they do with power rather than axiomatically ascribing a framework based on their influence within a power sharing agreement! That's what we do! Whether you support giving someone power is based on what they will do with it!
I don't want the Lib Dems to get power because last time they used it to support a coalition that fucked the country. Regardless, such is the crisis that I'd agree to accept them with another agreement to try to prevent the fucking of the country again, but they'll only do that if they get their own way all day in that agreement.
I feel like the Lib Dems position of not agreeing to Corbyn being the head of the GNU because he's untrustworthy on Brexit is more defensible than Corbyn's demand he's the leader for that brief time because...he wants it? Remember the whole point was to just demand the extension then dissolve parliament? Apart from the optics of being PM for a few days, why was that so important?
I live in a Tory safe seat, so I have the privilege of being able to vote how I actually feel like at the price of knowing my vote ultimately won't matter at all.
I feel like the Lib Dems position of not agreeing to Corbyn being the head of the GNU because he's untrustworthy on Brexit is more defensible than Corbyn's demand he's the leader for that brief time because...he wants it? Remember the whole point was to just demand the extension then dissolve parliament? Apart from the optics of being PM for a few days, why was that so important?
"He couldn't be trusted to be PM for a week." is a pretty significant blow in the run up to an election.
Edit: And it seems pretty out there to suggest that if made PM of a temporary unity government Corbyn would... what, not ask for an extension and try to crash out with no deal? That seems baseless
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I live in a Tory safe seat, so I have the privilege of being able to vote how I actually feel like at the price of knowing my vote ultimately won't matter at all.
...lucky you?
I wish. Just my tuppence on the tactical voting thing. And how FPTP sucks shit.
I feel like the Lib Dems position of not agreeing to Corbyn being the head of the GNU because he's untrustworthy on Brexit is more defensible than Corbyn's demand he's the leader for that brief time because...he wants it? Remember the whole point was to just demand the extension then dissolve parliament? Apart from the optics of being PM for a few days, why was that so important?
"He couldn't be trusted to be PM for a week." is a pretty significant blow in the run up to an election.
Edit: And it seems pretty out there to suggest that if made PM of a temporary unity government Corbyn would... what, not ask for an extension and try to crash out with no deal? That seems baseless
It would make Corbyn the face of remain without actually supporting it, which reinforces his ambiguity stance, and would be taken by momentum as a sign that whatever leave deal Corbyn dresses up as a unicorn must be delivered at all costs
Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".
Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".
"corbyn betrayed remain" to "youre just bitter about a perceived betrayal" in two paragraphs is giving me whiplash tbh
Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".
"corbyn betrayed remain" to "youre just bitter about a perceived betrayal" in two paragraphs is giving me whiplash tbh
My take, from what I've read, is that LibDem wanted a thing, said they'd deliver a thing, thought they could deliver a thing, and then found out that they couldn't.
Corbyn has wanted Brexit from the start, and has hedged and misled and prevaricated (but never actually lied, I suppose) to avoid losing the support of those he needs for the other thing he wants.
One is earnest failure, the other is deliberate dishonesty.
Solar, you know as well as I do that Corbyn doesn't want Remain. He wants Brexit, and to be in power. He will, at best, make a tepid show of going against the former, and only if it gets him the latter.
This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".
"corbyn betrayed remain" to "youre just bitter about a perceived betrayal" in two paragraphs is giving me whiplash tbh
My take, from what I've read, is that LibDem wanted a thing, said they'd deliver a thing, thought they could deliver a thing, and then found out that they couldn't.
Corbyn has wanted Brexit from the start, and has hedged and misled and prevaricated (but never actually lied, I suppose) to avoid losing the support of those he needs for the other thing he wants.
One is earnest failure, the other is deliberate dishonesty.
Nah. The LibDems could have delivered. It took a bill and they voted for it. They could have voted against it. No one is mad at the tories for it because the tories didn't say they were for it. They were against it. The LibDems said "don't worry about our tory alliance we won't let them have this one" and then they let them have that one... AND then they didn't get anything out of it. So it makes sense to be super fucking unhappy with them for allying with their natural enemies, giving those enemies what they wanted despite promising not to do that, and then not getting what they thought they were going to get for it. It was either a betrayal or getting "massively fucking played" and either way it makes sense to hold a grudge for that.
This isn't like in the US where you might promise something and then just... not have the votes because you don't control the legislature. They had the votes; the opposition voted against it. They could have defeated the government had they wanted to. They could have defeated the government, triggered a reconstitution of the government and voted to reconstitute the same government had they wanted.
Posts
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I suspect this oncoming election is going to see more than its fair share of tactical voting.
I think the one thing I wouldn't do to flip a Tory seat is vote BXP.
ETA: Disclaimer: Of course I live in a Tory safe seat, where the Lib Dem challenger is something like 6000 votes behind, so really it doesn't matter what I'd do.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
Yup. Corbyn has dug his own grave on this issue. He's shown himself to be unreliable on the issue.
If you see people criticizing the Lib Dems less for their view on this issue, it's probably because they also don't see Corbyn as reliable.
1) the gnu/caretaker gov was always a wild fantasy that would never have worked
2) corbyns refusal to (theoretically) stand down for someone else is probably something to do with the fact that hes the loto, the only non-tory party leader who could realistically head up a gov after a ge, and to pass over the role of a 'caretaker' pm to someone else is to admit that he can be budged for somebody who can deliver a tiny fraction of the number of votes he can. this is not a clever political strategy
3) labour would be delivering, what, 7.5x more votes than any other party in a potential gnu? what makes you think those labour votes would be happy to back anyone other than the leader of their own party?
Their policy has been restated today and it's just as ridiculous as usual:
Iain is a BBC political correspondent.
The problem is that this isn't going to happen. Can you really see people like Farage or Rees-Mogg just shutting up and going home if we manage to cancel Brexit? They'll be screaming about it for decades.
We're here forever.
I disagree. I think that their position (2nd Referendum in any circumstance, which Lib Dems also said until... Today) is reasonable. Would I prefer Revoke? Yes. But so what if the Lib Dems say they'll revoke if they get a majority, they definitely won't.
Their policy was significant insofar as a National Unity Gov needed them. And within that context they took the view of this is a really good idea, but if by far the largest party in that coalition thinks their leader will be the caretaker pm, they can stuff it! To which I say, clearly not that important to you then, is it, and so sod off
Not true, because they can be sent back to the fringe where their supporters can die of old age. Brexit is a minority position, becoming more of one every day.
Accepting that they were a minor party supporting a coalition where one party gave most of the seats is why they shafted the country the last time they were in power
Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
You say you think their position is reasonable but you skip over the actual relevant part of their position to this discussion. It's not just "have a 2nd referendum" because on top of that it's also "they won't commit to which side of that referendum they will back". And that's the whole problem. They are literally saying they can't be trusted to back Remain.
And Labour has been shafting the UK since before the Brexit vote even dropped by milquetoast 7 out of 10 opposition to Brexit and then further shitting the bed as the opposition party for years now, against the most incompetent, cretinous and disorganized Tory government in a long time. And that's when they weren't actively backing Brexit itself, like with their moves re: Article 50. A huge part of the issue has been that Labour has just sucked at their job of opposing the Tories.
Didn't those Labour votes literally support a motion of no confidence against Corbyn just a few years ago.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Bleugh I say
I wish Youtube's "Breaking News" function would just stop
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
that wouldn't end anything
also it would hose a ton of people who did everything they could to stop it
also as much as i and most of us here hate it - leave won the referendum! you cant just wish away the fact that there is a big bloc of british voters that wants to get out of the eu and their votes will get you just as elected as the votes of folk who want to remain in the eu
in the same way that brexit on 31/10 would not be the end of the question on how do we trade/travel/deal with european countries, a 2nd ref leading to remain/a50 revocation will not mean that everyone who wants to leave the eu will just go 'oh alright then, guess thats over with' - this is going to be a central question for the uk for the foreseeable future and you cant go making any decisions without considering what the long-term ramifications are. especially if your plans go wrong! that kind of short-termism is exactly what brought the uk to this point
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Within the context of a gov of NU formed solely to deal with a crisis I wouldn't calling them shafting the country.
Like, in a surprising twist yes I would in fact judge the Lib Dems on what they do with power rather than axiomatically ascribing a framework based on their influence within a power sharing agreement! That's what we do! Whether you support giving someone power is based on what they will do with it!
I don't want the Lib Dems to get power because last time they used it to support a coalition that fucked the country. Regardless, such is the crisis that I'd agree to accept them with another agreement to try to prevent the fucking of the country again, but they'll only do that if they get their own way all day in that agreement.
At best its a minority by a small amount.
The issue all the western democracies are facing mostly comes from the demos not the -cracy, which is a really hard problem to have.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...lucky you?
"He couldn't be trusted to be PM for a week." is a pretty significant blow in the run up to an election.
Edit: And it seems pretty out there to suggest that if made PM of a temporary unity government Corbyn would... what, not ask for an extension and try to crash out with no deal? That seems baseless
I wish. Just my tuppence on the tactical voting thing. And how FPTP sucks shit.
Steam | XBL
It would make Corbyn the face of remain without actually supporting it, which reinforces his ambiguity stance, and would be taken by momentum as a sign that whatever leave deal Corbyn dresses up as a unicorn must be delivered at all costs
MWO: Adamski
This is really, IMO, all about your personal animosity toward "the betrayers".
"corbyn betrayed remain" to "youre just bitter about a perceived betrayal" in two paragraphs is giving me whiplash tbh
My take, from what I've read, is that LibDem wanted a thing, said they'd deliver a thing, thought they could deliver a thing, and then found out that they couldn't.
Corbyn has wanted Brexit from the start, and has hedged and misled and prevaricated (but never actually lied, I suppose) to avoid losing the support of those he needs for the other thing he wants.
One is earnest failure, the other is deliberate dishonesty.
Nah. The LibDems could have delivered. It took a bill and they voted for it. They could have voted against it. No one is mad at the tories for it because the tories didn't say they were for it. They were against it. The LibDems said "don't worry about our tory alliance we won't let them have this one" and then they let them have that one... AND then they didn't get anything out of it. So it makes sense to be super fucking unhappy with them for allying with their natural enemies, giving those enemies what they wanted despite promising not to do that, and then not getting what they thought they were going to get for it. It was either a betrayal or getting "massively fucking played" and either way it makes sense to hold a grudge for that.
This isn't like in the US where you might promise something and then just... not have the votes because you don't control the legislature. They had the votes; the opposition voted against it. They could have defeated the government had they wanted to. They could have defeated the government, triggered a reconstitution of the government and voted to reconstitute the same government had they wanted.