Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Welp

1596062646591

Posts

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thanks for the answers.
    Are there any countries where FPTP and de-facto two-party systems (though this seems to be weakening in the UK, even if the system doesn't really seem to reflect this well) have proven to be a net positive?
    P.S.: On a different note: Has the style sheet for the forums changed? I don't remember there being these big spaces between paragraphs, since I used to put those in manually.)

    I know some might disagree, but Australia fits that, for the most part.

    Except it doesn't because we don't have FPTP

    To me that's a critical part of political disengagement which allows for the rise of populists - it's easier to feel like your vote doesn't matter under FPTP systems.

    I thought you had Ranked Choice Voting, which is a form of FPTP. One that basically solves the vote splitting issue, but still first past the post.

    Nope? Straight up FPTP winner takes all here.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Well I aint from Australia or nothing but I run some computations through the google matrix and so far as I can tell Australia uses "Instant run-off voting", whatever that is, and they call it "preferential voting"

  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    edited December 2
    I am pretty sure that a Single Transferable Vote system where there can be only one winner is Instant runoff voting.
    Irish presidential elections use that system.

    HerrCron on
    sig.gif
    tynicKetBra
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2
    moniker wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thanks for the answers.
    Are there any countries where FPTP and de-facto two-party systems (though this seems to be weakening in the UK, even if the system doesn't really seem to reflect this well) have proven to be a net positive?
    P.S.: On a different note: Has the style sheet for the forums changed? I don't remember there being these big spaces between paragraphs, since I used to put those in manually.)

    I know some might disagree, but Australia fits that, for the most part.

    Except it doesn't because we don't have FPTP

    To me that's a critical part of political disengagement which allows for the rise of populists - it's easier to feel like your vote doesn't matter under FPTP systems.

    I thought you had Ranked Choice Voting, which is a form of FPTP. One that basically solves the vote splitting issue, but still first past the post.

    We mostly have STV (upper house) or instant runoff (lower house). Instant runoff means you keep distributing until there's an outright majority, so it's not strictly speaking FPTP as the term is mostly used, since you need over 50% of the eventual distributed vote to win. STV is the same as instant runoff except you stop when the # candidates left == # seats. If there's multiple seats, the latter looks a little closer to FPTP since you can win with <50% of the vote, except that's only true if there are multiple seats so it is effectively proportional representation.

    tynic on
  • AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thanks for the answers.
    Are there any countries where FPTP and de-facto two-party systems (though this seems to be weakening in the UK, even if the system doesn't really seem to reflect this well) have proven to be a net positive?
    P.S.: On a different note: Has the style sheet for the forums changed? I don't remember there being these big spaces between paragraphs, since I used to put those in manually.)

    I know some might disagree, but Australia fits that, for the most part.

    Except it doesn't because we don't have FPTP

    To me that's a critical part of political disengagement which allows for the rise of populists - it's easier to feel like your vote doesn't matter under FPTP systems.

    I thought you had Ranked Choice Voting, which is a form of FPTP. One that basically solves the vote splitting issue, but still first past the post.

    FPTP only for elections and they deliberately don't want to change that because any other system automatically gives other parties more power.

    Commander ZoomMr Ray
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    tynic wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    tynic wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Thanks for the answers.
    Are there any countries where FPTP and de-facto two-party systems (though this seems to be weakening in the UK, even if the system doesn't really seem to reflect this well) have proven to be a net positive?
    P.S.: On a different note: Has the style sheet for the forums changed? I don't remember there being these big spaces between paragraphs, since I used to put those in manually.)

    I know some might disagree, but Australia fits that, for the most part.

    Except it doesn't because we don't have FPTP

    To me that's a critical part of political disengagement which allows for the rise of populists - it's easier to feel like your vote doesn't matter under FPTP systems.

    I thought you had Ranked Choice Voting, which is a form of FPTP. One that basically solves the vote splitting issue, but still first past the post.

    We mostly have STV (upper house) or instant runoff (lower house). Instant runoff means you keep distributing until there's an outright majority, so it's not strictly speaking FPTP as the term is mostly used, since you need over 50% of the eventual distributed vote to win. STV is the same as instant runoff except you stop when the # candidates left == # seats. If there's multiple seats, the latter looks a little closer to FPTP since you can win with <50% of the vote, except that's only true if there are multiple seats so it is effectively proportional representation.

    Upper house goes IIRC, if you have >100%/#of seats, then you no longer accrue votes and excess votes above that percentage are distributed according to the fractional percentage of what your voters voted for next

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    tynic
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Frankly, it annoys me that the majority of the minority has to be convinced not to vote conservative to prevent any conservative senator in my electorate, as opposed to 1:1 conservative:not a complete ratbag, but I guess that's who people vote for.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited December 3
    So, for those that wondered "Why Maxwell hasn't been arrested yet?" well, everybody that guessed that she had the kompromat was on the money:
    Prince Andrew sent an email to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell at 5.50am to let her know he had 'specific questions' about Virginia Roberts in 2015.

    Tonight's BBC Panorama investigation uncovered the email which suggests he asked for Ghislaine Maxwell's help in responding to Virginia Roberts' claims he had sex with her when she was 17 and a trafficked 'sex slave' of Epstein.

    In the email the Prince tells Ghislaine Maxwell: 'Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts.'

    Ghislaine replies: 'Have some info. Call me when you have a moment.'

    EDIT: This was supposed to go on the Epstein thread, but eh, still on topic.

    TryCatcher on
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Partly it's the first past the post voting system, in which the number of votes doesn't matter, just who gets the most in each constituency. So the Lib Dems can poll 15% of the votes and get 3% of the MPs (and UKIP can poll 10% and get none).

    Partly it's due to the parties themselves, with a leader saying "no pacts" and scuppering any chance that way. Labour still haven't forgiven the Lib Dems for the original 4 MPs leaving in the 80's to form the SDP and splitting the vote then, so they aren't likely to make nice now.

    The Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru have made an electoral pact to not stand in around 60 constituencies if the other parties have a better chance (in practice this basically means the Lib Dems get a slightly freer road than was otherwise the case), but the only one that'll really matter is if Labour and the Lib Dems sort something out.

    I think it may also be partly due to a fundamental ideological disagreement that outweighs any petty jealousy. The Labour attitude seems to be "Why trust the Lib Dems?"

    Which appears entirely justified. Rivalry aside, the Lib Dems are completely complicit in the enactment of austerity measures. Labour might not have forgiven the Lib Dems for something about a couple of MP's in the 80's, but they have even more not forgiven them for that shit in the early 10's. It is hard to make a gentlemen's agreement to prevent a conservative government when the other side has indicated they have no problem with working with the conservatives.


    I think there is a popular view of Labour that is deeply mistaken, and which also explains the common belief of Labour's Brexit stance being garbled and their general campaign strategies being unclear. Labour, or the member alliance that currently decides policy if you want to be vaguer, doesn't give a shit about Brexit. That is, Brexit is not their main concern at all and their attitude towards it depends on the factual end results of any decision. The primary concern is austerity and opposing it. The reason they oppose the Conservative Party is not because they want to brexit, but because they caused incredible harm to the working class in the last decade. They killed people and keep killing people. With regards to EU membership, the salient fact is that said membership clearly did not prevent that shit.

    Aldo
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Well neither did labour prevent austerity...

    EU membership is either a good thing or a bad thing and it must be dealt with. Now i dont exactly have the pulse on the UK publics opinion but i would be surprised if the majority of labour (or informed majority) held either the view of “meh” or “its not important”

    wbBv3fj.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Well neither did labour prevent austerity...

    EU membership is either a good thing or a bad thing and it must be dealt with. Now i dont exactly have the pulse on the UK publics opinion but i would be surprised if the majority of labour (or informed majority) held either the view of “meh” or “its not important”

    As I understand it a good chunk of the public voted for Brexit to stick it to the man.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Well neither did labour prevent austerity...

    EU membership is either a good thing or a bad thing and it must be dealt with. Now i dont exactly have the pulse on the UK publics opinion but i would be surprised if the majority of labour (or informed majority) held either the view of “meh” or “its not important”

    As I understand it a good chunk of the public voted for Brexit to stick it to the man.

    "The Man" at the time being David Cameron, who campaigned for Remain

    fuck gendered marketing
    H3KnucklesAldo
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Well neither did labour prevent austerity...

    EU membership is either a good thing or a bad thing and it must be dealt with. Now i dont exactly have the pulse on the UK publics opinion but i would be surprised if the majority of labour (or informed majority) held either the view of “meh” or “its not important”

    As I understand it a good chunk of the public voted for Brexit to stick it to the man.

    "The Man" at the time being David Cameron, who campaigned for Remain

    Well, they sure showed him, huh.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    MorganVscherbchenApogeeJaysonFour
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited December 3
    @Julius: I agree with what you're saying to a large extent, except for that last bit - or rather, if what you're saying is true, it definitely makes me think that the Labour policy makers are idiots. Rejecting or not caring about the EU because they didn't stop the Tories from implementing their particular brand of austerity without looking at whether the EU constitutes a net good in terms of what Labour cares about (e.g. workers' rights, health and safety, job creation) strikes me as masturbatory self-righteousness. And that makes me doubt their ability to bring about meaningful change in a deeply flawed political system.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    H3KnucklesNetscapeBigJoeMMoridin889
  • 101101 Registered User regular
    Elldren wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Well neither did labour prevent austerity...

    EU membership is either a good thing or a bad thing and it must be dealt with. Now i dont exactly have the pulse on the UK publics opinion but i would be surprised if the majority of labour (or informed majority) held either the view of “meh” or “its not important”

    As I understand it a good chunk of the public voted for Brexit to stick it to the man.

    "The Man" at the time being David Cameron, who campaigned for Remain

    Having Corbyn on the stage with Cameron might have combatted that attitude, but Corbyn wants Brexit so no deal

    Commander ZoomshrykeNetscapealtidBlackDragon480
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    Julius wrote: »
    I think there is a popular view of Labour that is deeply mistaken, and which also explains the common belief of Labour's Brexit stance being garbled and their general campaign strategies being unclear. Labour, or the member alliance that currently decides policy if you want to be vaguer, doesn't give a shit about Brexit. That is, Brexit is not their main concern at all and their attitude towards it depends on the factual end results of any decision. The primary concern is austerity and opposing it. The reason they oppose the Conservative Party is not because they want to brexit, but because they caused incredible harm to the working class in the last decade. They killed people and keep killing people. With regards to EU membership, the salient fact is that said membership clearly did not prevent that shit.

    The EU is not there to govern individual member countries if their duly elected governments decide to cut funding for things. It is not the job of the EU to stop a member country from implementing austerity measures of the kind the UK has undergone. Blaming the EU for not "stepping in", in whatever form that would be, is ludicrous, and Labour have never, not under Corbyn or anyone else, suggested that the EU should be even more involved in the running of the UK's internal politics. The myth that they are is what has fuelled idiotic euroscepticism for decades.

    But EU membership does, in fact, make opposing austerity easier, because it's economically beneficial, and gives more money to the government who wishes to help the poorest in society. Brexit makes almost everything Labour want to do harder, because it means they have less money, the economy is weaker and jobs are more scarce. There is no welfare program or austerity reversal that is not made more difficult by Brexit. It's more difficult to alleviate poverty when all the car manufacturing plants have closed down and the people who used to work there now need support.

    shrykeH3KnucklesCroakerBCElldrenjmcdonaldJazzmrondeauPowerpuppiesmonikerscherbchenBlackDragon480tynicForarArdolpainfulPleasanceLabelmysticjuicerCasualLord_AsmodeusHappy Little MachineJaysonFour
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    I also don't believe anyone in Labour has actually blamed the EU for austerity, or tried to argue that it's in some responsible. At least not publicly, though some of the 'brains' in Corbyn's leadership team talk darkly of the EU being a neo-liberal project and blah blah fucking blah.

    Certainly at no point has Labour said the "salient fact" of our membership is that it doesn't have veto over our own government.

    H3KnucklesCroakerBCElldrenPowerpuppies
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    edited December 3
    This might veer close to conspiracy theory but here goes. Len McCluskey and Corbyn both are economical dinosaurs, but.
    Why they are dinosaurs? To them the battle was very much that of the late 70ies closures. In their mind, nationalizing industries and generous Keynesian spending can keep an economy running. They're not technically right in that the EU can't prevent that, but they're not entirely wrong either.
    Either way, it doesn't matter. There won't be tens of thousands of people piling back into the mines. The car industry isn't going to revert to hand-crafted wooden paneling. And running cheaper trains won't transform the economy overnight. By now Corbyn should have seen and been explained any number of studies explaining that the damage of withdrawing from the EU cannot be corrected for no matter how much of the economy he thinks to nationalize afterwards. Keep in mind that if Corbyn tries to sponsor any industry the EU is going to claim and get tariffs. The more money he hands out the less the UK exports.
    Again, he should know this by now, as he should have been told (by the EU if no-one else) that within the EU the UK could probably do a lot of his proposals regardless of EU criticism. That's the but. No-one in Corbyn's position should be that uninformed. You can't compare this to austerity politicians who well know that their policies will only enrich the rich. They lie with good reason, feeling guilty all the way to the bank.
    However, why would Corbyn lie?
    What's the big ticket item that the EU can keep a Labour government from getting?
    Part of it is that McCluskey wants to keep the Polish out. That's not a conspiracy theory; it was part of a Labour proposal for an amended May deal. Now, there are many reasons why a socialist may forget about the 'internationalist' part of socialism. One major one is if you are a union leader depending on support from workers who feel wage pressure rather than a politician needing to build international coalitions...
    But (here's the full-on conspiracy part) there's likely more going on. I'd love for someone to drop the phrase 'Immigrants are the reserve army of capital' and watch McCluskeys face.
    For those not in the know, it's a very common dogwhistle among the Russophile part of leftwing populism. McCluskey might be knowingly riding a wave of Russian-sponsored white van anger.
    Another conspiracy theory that's not unlikely is that McCluskey is actually not bothered about losing the election, getting a hard Brexit, and seeing the economy crash. Again, he's not a politician who delivers the goods. He's a union leader who fights Tories and the stronger and more evil those Tories are the more support he figures he will get.
    It's not unthinkable that he's managed to convince Corbyn that a hard Brexit disaster will translate into Labour winning the first post-Brexit election. Labour was ahead in the polls from April till August only because the Brexit party stole more voters away from the Tories than from Labour. There's no analysis where the British will vote social instead of racist, that's just wishful thinking. And (almost) everywhere the left openly opposes immigration people end up voting for the original rightwing anti-immigration parties anyway. You could even make an case that only centrist liberal parties have managed to make moderate anti-immigration work.



    Cornucopiist on
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Something to remember about the Lib-Dems is that they might have been the only reason we didn't get in this shit five years earlier. As I remember it, Cameron was already promising an EU referendum, but oh no, can't do one in a coalition because the Lib-Dems won't support it, oh no what a shame oh well let's get on with other things and keep blaming the EU in the meantime.
    And because polling suggested another coalition gov was in the cards, he had no problem making the same promise he wouldn't have to keep just so he could keep the anti-euro MPs from jumping to UKIP, then oh shit he got a majority fuck now he had to keep his word.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
    BogartshrykeCptKemzik
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    Yeah, the Lib Dems co-signed a lot of very bad Tory bills and also prevented a lot of other bad Tory bills from getting off the ground, the EU referendum being one of them.

    ElldrenRhesus PositiveshrykemonikerAntinumericMoridin889CptKemzikJaysonFour
  • PerduraboPerdurabo Leeds, UKRegistered User regular
    I don't think that's correct? They both promised a referendum should there be a further shift of powers from the UK to Europe in their 2010 manifestos, neither were asking for an in-out referendum in 2010.

    All major parties promised a referendum on the EU constitution in 2004. Even Tony Blair said this needed a referendum, however Labour changed their stance once the EU constitution was changed into the Lisbon Treaty. The Lib Dems called for an in-out referendum in 2008. The sleight of hand around the Lisbon Treaty gave the Eurosceptics a powerful argument for a referendum, especially in Tory circles. Not holding that referendum, as France and the Netherlands did, lay the groundwork for what happened in 2016.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Like the arguments about brexit, everyone was talking about referendums, but no-one could agree on what kind of referendum it should be, so in any coalition it was never going to get off the ground.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • PerduraboPerdurabo Leeds, UKRegistered User regular
    I'm not particularly a harsh critic of what the Lib Dems did in coalition, but I don't see that they deserve praise for stopping a referendum the Tories weren't looking to hold.

    The only referendum on the cards at that time, the coalition actually put into law - the so called referendum lock, for any treaty that transferred powers to Brussels.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    October, 2014, from the BBC website.
    The Conservatives have accused their Lib Dem coalition partners of "killing off" attempts to pass a law before the election enshrining an EU referendum.

    A proposed bill tabled by Tory MP Bob Neill cleared its first Commons hurdle last week but a fierce row has erupted between the parties over its future.

    Mr Neill said the Lib Dems had used "Westminster tricks" to thwart it.

    But senior Lib Dems said the Tories had effectively sacrificed the bill by attaching "ridiculous conditions".

    David Cameron has promised an in-out referendum on the UK's membership of the EU by 2017 if he is in power after the election, to be preceded by a renegotiation with the EU's 27 other members.

  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    I've been looking at polling from around October aaaand it would seem that there's a surprisingly large number of people that want a no deal brexit.
    I realise polling is, well, polling, but given that the Leave camp when it comes to the voting public isn't as split as I would have thought ..

    Not sure how to phrase this.
    How does one take out all the stupid people?

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • PerduraboPerdurabo Leeds, UKRegistered User regular
    A law which takes effect after an election?

    The EU referendum happened despite that law not coming into force in 2014. I'll vote Lib Dem, but I don't credit them with stopping a referendum that happened.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    I've been looking at polling from around October aaaand it would seem that there's a surprisingly large number of people that want a no deal brexit.
    I realise polling is, well, polling, but given that the Leave camp when it comes to the voting public isn't as split as I would have thought ..

    Not sure how to phrase this.
    How does one take out all the stupid people?

    I wonder how many of them really truly want no-deal as opposed to just wanting Brexit over and done with even if it means no-deal. The latter is stupid you might be able to reason with.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    ChanusmonikerBlackDragon480Commander ZoomGvzbgul
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    evilthecat wrote: »
    I've been looking at polling from around October aaaand it would seem that there's a surprisingly large number of people that want a no deal brexit.
    I realise polling is, well, polling, but given that the Leave camp when it comes to the voting public isn't as split as I would have thought ..

    Not sure how to phrase this.
    How does one take out all the stupid people?

    I wonder how many of them really truly want no-deal as opposed to just wanting Brexit over and done with even if it means no-deal. The latter is stupid you might be able to reason with.

    i don't know that either is a reasonable position that someone could be talked out of to be honest

    "burn it all down" is maybe even a more reasonable position than "give me what i want even if we have to burn it all down"

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    evilthecat wrote: »
    I've been looking at polling from around October aaaand it would seem that there's a surprisingly large number of people that want a no deal brexit.
    I realise polling is, well, polling, but given that the Leave camp when it comes to the voting public isn't as split as I would have thought ..

    Not sure how to phrase this.
    How does one take out all the stupid people?

    I wonder how many of them really truly want no-deal as opposed to just wanting Brexit over and done with even if it means no-deal. The latter is stupid you might be able to reason with.

    i don't know that either is a reasonable position that someone could be talked out of to be honest

    "burn it all down" is maybe even a more reasonable position than "give me what i want even if we have to burn it all down"

    I think that being so fed up with the Brexit mess that you just want it over and done with no matter what is an understandable, albeit wrong, position; and it might be possible to redirect them to preferring a second referendum or revoking Article 50 in order to end the pain. Lord knows I occasionally wish that Brexit were done one way or another because I'm utterly fed up with having to test out the system changes we're making in case it happens. And I know better. I work at a company that will definitely be taking a hit if Brexit happens in any way, shape, or form.
    Actually wanting a no-deal Brexit though, that's some red pill rabbit hole crazy-stupid position that I can't even begin to imagine that it's possible to argue someone out of.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    After the Withdrawal Agreement there will come the trade deal negotiations

    Brexit will never be done

    SolarH3KnucklesmonikerStabbity StyleJazztynicCommander ZoomShadow DemonShadowenElldrenGvzbgulLabelLord_AsmodeusHappy Little MachineJaysonFour
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    Re: the last two posters

    The person I chatted to yesterday is of the opinion that Boris is a "crypto-leaver" that has infiltrated the conservative party.
    I.e. Boris doesn't really believe in Brexit, Cameron said so, the only true Brexit position it a hard out.

    I don't think this person is fed up with brexit and their position is "we'll be fine once we're out".
    And again, looking at polls (ok, bbc, and they're sorta shitty these days), most leavers (73%) want no-deal over Boris' deal.

    It's a nightmare.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • Mc zanyMc zany Registered User regular
    edited December 3
    A lot of people tied brexit to whatever problem they were having. E.g. the fish quotas or being ignored. That means there are a lot of people eagerly waiting for brexit as they believe that their lives will improve once it happens. If no deal is the only way to get that improvement then so be it.

    The vote leave campaign (which Boris was not a part of) went all out on this because they knew they could disappear into the shadows once they had gotten what they wanted and not have to deal with actually implementing those improvements.

    Mc zany on
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Re: the last two posters

    The person I chatted to yesterday is of the opinion that Boris is a "crypto-leaver" that has infiltrated the conservative party.
    I.e. Boris doesn't really believe in Brexit, Cameron said so, the only true Brexit position it a hard out.

    I don't think this person is fed up with brexit and their position is "we'll be fine once we're out".
    And again, looking at polls (ok, bbc, and they're sorta shitty these days), most leavers (73%) want no-deal over Boris' deal.

    It's a nightmare.

    They're right that Boris doesn't really believe in Brexit. If polls came out tomorrow that said Remain was the hugely popular option he'd flip from Eurasia to Eastasia fast enough to break causality. I have some friends who think that the UK will do OK post-Brexit and there's nothing backing up their thinking. It's just 'the EU is holding the UK back' so once they leave the EU something something, PROFIT!

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    FencingsaxElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 3
    The "Let's just No Deal and get this over with" is a pretty expected positions. Voters are not nuanced or coherent thinkers by and large. Especially not one that aren't well informed or partisan (which tend to go hand in hand).

    Basically, they are tired of all this "Brexit" talk and just want it all to be over and so just walking away from the EU, in their ignorant minds, accomplishes that. "We aren't in the EU anymore, so there's nothing to argue about now."

    This is why you don't have referendums. People have only the vaguest idea what policy entails most of the time.

    shryke on
    H3KnucklesFencingsaxCommander Zoom
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    No deal Brexit is the simplest sounding version of Leave and that's what the stupidest Leave people will plump for because it sounds like the purest distillation of what they think they want and it also sounds like it requires no further investigation on their part. NO DEAL: JOB DONE.

    SnicketysnickshrykeBurnageautono-wally, erotibot300H3KnucklesmonikermrondeauStabbity StyleMartini_PhilosopherJazztynicFencingsaxCommander ZoomShadowenElldrenpainfulPleasanceAegisLord_AsmodeusHappy Little MachineJaysonFour
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    To every problem, there's a solution that's quick, easy and wrong

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    H3KnucklesmrondeauStabbity StyleBlackDragon480Martini_PhilosopherApogeeBethryntynicFencingsaxSolarRhesus PositiveCommander ZoomAimShadowenElldrenpainfulPleasanceLabelmysticjuicerAegislonelyahavaLord_AsmodeusFryHappy Little MachineJaysonFour
  • H3KnucklesH3Knuckles Jack of all interests... ...master of noneRegistered User regular
    edited December 3
    To every problem, there's a solution that's quick, easy and wrong

    As I read this, I heard it in Stephen Fry's voice, starting with a light and airy tone at the beginning, and then dropping pitch, adding emphasis, and slightly extending the 'r' sound in wrong. It just seems like the sort of thing he'd say in QI to close out a segment.

    H3Knuckles on
    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
    fedaykin666FencingsaxCommander ZoomGvzbgullonelyahavaLord_AsmodeusFry
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This might veer close to conspiracy theory but here goes. Len McCluskey and Corbyn both are economical dinosaurs, but.
    Why they are dinosaurs? To them the battle was very much that of the late 70ies closures. In their mind, nationalizing industries and generous Keynesian spending can keep an economy running. They're not technically right in that the EU can't prevent that, but they're not entirely wrong either.
    Either way, it doesn't matter. There won't be tens of thousands of people piling back into the mines. The car industry isn't going to revert to hand-crafted wooden paneling. And running cheaper trains won't transform the economy overnight. By now Corbyn should have seen and been explained any number of studies explaining that the damage of withdrawing from the EU cannot be corrected for no matter how much of the economy he thinks to nationalize afterwards. Keep in mind that if Corbyn tries to sponsor any industry the EU is going to claim and get tariffs. The more money he hands out the less the UK exports.
    Again, he should know this by now, as he should have been told (by the EU if no-one else) that within the EU the UK could probably do a lot of his proposals regardless of EU criticism. That's the but. No-one in Corbyn's position should be that uninformed. You can't compare this to austerity politicians who well know that their policies will only enrich the rich. They lie with good reason, feeling guilty all the way to the bank.
    However, why would Corbyn lie?
    What's the big ticket item that the EU can keep a Labour government from getting?
    Part of it is that McCluskey wants to keep the Polish out. That's not a conspiracy theory; it was part of a Labour proposal for an amended May deal. Now, there are many reasons why a socialist may forget about the 'internationalist' part of socialism. One major one is if you are a union leader depending on support from workers who feel wage pressure rather than a politician needing to build international coalitions...
    But (here's the full-on conspiracy part) there's likely more going on. I'd love for someone to drop the phrase 'Immigrants are the reserve army of capital' and watch McCluskeys face.
    For those not in the know, it's a very common dogwhistle among the Russophile part of leftwing populism. McCluskey might be knowingly riding a wave of Russian-sponsored white van anger.
    Another conspiracy theory that's not unlikely is that McCluskey is actually not bothered about losing the election, getting a hard Brexit, and seeing the economy crash. Again, he's not a politician who delivers the goods. He's a union leader who fights Tories and the stronger and more evil those Tories are the more support he figures he will get.
    It's not unthinkable that he's managed to convince Corbyn that a hard Brexit disaster will translate into Labour winning the first post-Brexit election. Labour was ahead in the polls from April till August only because the Brexit party stole more voters away from the Tories than from Labour. There's no analysis where the British will vote social instead of racist, that's just wishful thinking. And (almost) everywhere the left openly opposes immigration people end up voting for the original rightwing anti-immigration parties anyway. You could even make an case that only centrist liberal parties have managed to make moderate anti-immigration work.

    I honestly think, especially given his personality, that the more likely explanation is simply that Corbyn is being old-man-stubborn. He should know all this by now, but he doesn't, because he doesn't want to.

    Commander ZoomCornucopiist
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    No deal sounds like the best way to stick it to The Man, and we hate that guy.
    evilthecat wrote: »
    I.e. Boris doesn't really believe in Brexit, Cameron said so, the only true Brexit position it a hard out.
    Depends how you define 'really believe'. Boris would not sacrifice his career to get brexit done; if the polls clearly supported remain, he'd switch in a heartbeat.
    I do think he truly believes he can make this work, and he'll believe that whatever happens afterwards will be either Great or Worth The Cost.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • NeveronNeveron SwedenRegistered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    I've been looking at polling from around October aaaand it would seem that there's a surprisingly large number of people that want a no deal brexit.
    I realise polling is, well, polling, but given that the Leave camp when it comes to the voting public isn't as split as I would have thought ..

    Not sure how to phrase this.
    How does one take out all the stupid people?

    Voter suppression, generally.

    ssEXN.png
Sign In or Register to comment.