I'm curious what the legal underpinnings are for Scottish independence are.
I mean I know there's the whole realpolitik of it, but like, what's the original agreement that made them part of the UK, what're the chances of Scotland being able to unilaterally declare independence?
The original agreement is basically James the 1st/6th but there was a treaty ~100 or so years later in 1706/7 to integrate both parliaments (and officially form the UK) The Scotland Act of 1998 is the basis of the current devolved goverment. Chances of being able to just declare independance and walk off? functionally zero
Once again I remind everyone that in a scenario where Scotland unillaterly declare independence only one side has the nuclear missiles and it ain't England.
Except not. The Missiles are on subs run by the Royal Navy. One order from the queen and they head south. The one thing that can make her give that order is people talking about how Scotland is a nuclear power and how Westminster better watch out or else they get a nuke express delivery.
She does live quite close to Number 10 after all. Well, close enough for a nuke.
So lets just drop the who owns the nukes debate.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
There is the question of what England would actually be willing to do to keep scotland though?
Would England be willing to declare war and fight? If not you have a Taiwan situation where the big question becomes whether Scotland can get international recognition.
The EU would probably not be willing to admit a Scotland that didn’t formally secede and be granted secession though.
There is the question of what England would actually be willing to do to keep scotland though?
Would England be willing to declare war and fight? If not you have a Taiwan situation where the big question becomes whether Scotland can get international recognition.
The EU would probably not be willing to admit a Scotland that didn’t formally secede and be granted secession though.
England wouldn't fight over leaving but they'll fight over who gets what and who owes what. That's different and contractual and it doesn't rub up against international norms.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I'm curious what the legal underpinnings are for Scottish independence are.
I mean I know there's the whole realpolitik of it, but like, what's the original agreement that made them part of the UK, what're the chances of Scotland being able to unilaterally declare independence?
The original agreement is basically James the 1st/6th but there was a treaty ~100 or so years later in 1706/7 to integrate both parliaments (and officially form the UK) The Scotland Act of 1998 is the basis of the current devolved goverment. Chances of being able to just declare independance and walk off? functionally zero
What if Nicola Sturgeon marries the Spanish King to forge an alliance with the Crown of Bourbon-Anjou?
I'm uninformed, but...isn't this whole thing going to be tied on the courts for months?
Indyref II: Electric boogaloo? If it goes ahead, and an independence majority is realised, I assume it’ll be in court for years. If not forever. Say what you will for Johnson, he does not want to be the PM remembered for breaking up the Union.
I’ve always thought his Churchillian schtick wasn’t affectation per se; he wants to be liked, within a circle, and he wants a historical legacy.
A positive one, I mean.
Might be willing to throw NI under the bus, because that one could rumble on past his term, and, as we’ve seen, a lot of people in England barely realise it exists. But Scotland? He’ll fight that one hard, I reckon.
the trade deal wont happen, or if it does will be v marginal
all us negotiating objectives bar us companies being able to bid for uk gov contracts are insanely domestically toxic, and us gains from uk concessions are close to zero, so we have nothing to give and they have nothing to gain
watch it run face first into the mire
pretty sure cracking the NHS open and gorging upon the viscera is something Boris can offer.
the key objectives on the us side are
1) get nhs to pay closer to us prices for drugs (nhs is already a public spending nightmare, anything that is just a commitment to comically large amounts more for drugs is, uh, not gonna happen - almost the main reason the nhs can be run as it is is because it has monopoly drug buying power in the uk)
2) letting us companies bid for the already privatised bits doesnt make a huge diff
anything beyond that is too costly domestically...
One thing I've seen bandied about that the US companies want is that sweet sweet medical information. Being an all in one thing the NHS has some great medical data that could be really useful even if it were strongly anonymized. Also maybe not such a huge deal to the UK public depending on how the coverage of it goes.
That data can help a lot of People. The NHS needs to get on top of it, even if it has nothing to do with the Americans.
Your mistake here is assuming that the purpose of a us style healthcare service is to help the public. Now, some of them aren't utterly predatory but the ones coming after you in the UK are.
Step 1 : The UK government sells all the hospitals. All of them. US healthcare companies are allowed to buy them. US healthcare companies do buy them
Step 2 : Freedom! No more public money for those silly poors. Everyone will pay their own healthcare now on and buy as much or little insurance as they want.
Step 3 : of course noone needs to buy insurance. Healthcare is a choice!
Step 4 : ooh, bad luck mate. You broke your leg! Now you owe us 500000 pounds. I mean, maybe you can shop around. With your broken leg. But we'll still be billing you 20000 for the bed you are sleeping in.
It probably wouldn't go quite that far, at least right away, but yeah, finding ways to deny healthcare or coverage for same is a big focus area in the US healthcare industry, even before the insane profiteering of the last decade or so making said healthcare unaffordable to begin with.
So what do you all think the timetable for Brexit is now?
As soon as possible because aren't there a ton of hedge funds betting on Brexit,
Plus dont new EU tax avoidance laws come into effect from next January? So I imagine a lot of Brexiteers/Tories are eager to not fall foul of them.
The tax avoidance laws aren't that much of a big deal. We already meet or exceed the standards for some of them, there's a change to CFCs that is a bit of a pisser bit doesn't really affect individuals, and the rules on exit taxes and hybrid mismatches need to be met by 1 January so we've already missed the boat on avoiding those.
There's some stuff about identifying ownership information on bank and payment accounts to prevent money laundering that's coming in, but it doesn't affect bank accounts outside of the EU. I guess that would technically include us, but I'm not up on my fraud prevention measures so I don't know how much that would affect us. I guess we could become a hub for money laundering, but we may need all the trade we can get
Just fucking take responsibility you useless old prick. Are you such a self righteous piece of shit that you’ll admit no failings on your part? Are you trying to start a Labour “lost cause” cult?
Absolute wanker. Just fuck off.
Corbyn seems genuinely incapable of introspection or self-critique, which might explain why his political beliefs have never moved beyond the 70s. Unlike Boris - with whom he shares this trait/defect - and populist leaders like Trump, the fact that he's just so blasé or (at his most passionate) tetchy makes this a drawback; ironically, if he was loudly, stridently unwilling to change his beliefs, he might have been more electable.
Or maybe not. I'm quite sad and drunk right now, so maybe the analysis is off.
Just fucking take responsibility you useless old prick. Are you such a self righteous piece of shit that you’ll admit no failings on your part? Are you trying to start a Labour “lost cause” cult?
Absolute wanker. Just fuck off.
Corbyn seems genuinely incapable of introspection or self-critique, which might explain why his political beliefs have never moved beyond the 70s. Unlike Boris - with whom he shares this trait/defect - and populist leaders like Trump, the fact that he's just so blasé or (at his most passionate) tetchy makes this a drawback; ironically, if he was loudly, stridently unwilling to change his beliefs, he might have been more electable.
Or maybe not. I'm quite sad and drunk right now, so maybe the analysis is off.
Corbyn seems to be channeling Seymour Skinner so much his skin's turning yellow. No, the voters aren't the problem, you idiot. It's you, being so out of touch you can't see you poisoned the fucking well and couldn't step aside for someone else to lead because you're just that unlikable. And now we have a second fat windbag in charge of another first world country who's going to set them back decades, just like the States.
This all seems really reminiscent of the last US election where it seemed inevitable the Dems would win as the sane choice but their heartlands just didn't go with them. I thought maybe we'd avoid it having such a huge warning years in advance, but it's the same, and for some reason they believed this oaf would help them at all.
I feel like one of the low key biggest stories of this election is just how divided the generations are in the UK. I mean, look at Yougov's voting intention poll -
If you break those down into left wing and right wing parties, the difference in votes between under 30s and over 75s is incredible. It's much more dramatic than the same split between left and right wing voters in the last US election, and I don't know what the hell might be driving it. This is very much a new trend, as well - if you compare, say, the 2010 results by demographic there was a slight increase in intention to vote Conservative as voters increased in age but it was nowhere near as marked as this.
There was also the case of having a leader popular and powerful within the party that was not particularly popular outside it. The democrats had the excuse that 2016 was Hillary Clinton’s first national election while this is the third major national election that Corbyn lost (and no the participation trophy labor gave themselves for not losing the last election quite so bad as they were expected to doesn’t count).
The big problem with labor is that they are running the party platform and elections in a manner fitting a third party like the lib dems or greens instead of like a real opposition, while at the same time refusing to work with any other minor parties in forming coalitions and electoral pacts (which is how you actually win as a minor party). Until they can sort that out they are pretty much fucked indefinitely.
They need to sit down and have an introspection: do they want to be a big tent party with the potential to win by themselves, which may mean compromising on some positions (like not being the third brexit party in a political landscape where 51% are for remain) . Or do they want to maintain ideological flexibility to be a harder left party and accept that it may mean they get 200 seats but can be the senior party in a coalition government rather than getting 250 seats but locked into a minority position for the next 30 years.
The current strategy of “just never compromise on anything, concede every national election to the tories without making any kind of serious effort, and hope that somehow everything works out for the best” doesn’t seem to work very well.
Jealous Deva on
+4
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
I feel like one of the low key biggest stories of this election is just how divided the generations are in the UK. I mean, look at Yougov's voting intention poll -
If you break those down into left wing and right wing parties, the difference in votes between under 30s and over 75s is incredible. It's much more dramatic than the same split between left and right wing voters in the last US election, and I don't know what the hell might be driving it. This is very much a new trend, as well - if you compare, say, the 2010 results by demographic there was a slight increase in intention to vote Conservative as voters increased in age but it was nowhere near as marked as this.
I think new communication technologies have allowed broad political messages to scale very well but have gotten rid of a lot of finesse. If you lean to a party, you get a very top-level view of what that party's views and goals are, while also getting that parties interpretation of what the other side believes. You are socially pressured to align with your peers due to your constant exposure to them (this is true for all generations). Most people aren't built for direct conflict - so once a side is established on social media the other just shuts up (but doesn't actually disappear).
I very rarely hear people on either side take or defend the views attributed to them by their opponents.
I think the older you go the more single issue you become. I imagine most of those 58% of 70+ people only care about "my pension, where is my pension, why am I not getting my pension now, I want more pension, I read that immigrants are taking all the money, get rid of the immigrants and give me more money".
Whereas those people sub 40 care about multiple things, which is why its so hard for the left/centre left here and the US to draw appeal because they have to cater to everyone, while the right just has to cater to greed and selfishness. Get rid of the "other", get you more money (although 'you' are not the person we're talking about).
That graph is a good example of why the Cons (also) lied during the AV vote, because straight away they're gonna be third or fourth choice for all those people under 30 and close third/second for people under 40.
I think the older you go the more single issue you become. I imagine most of those 58% of 70+ people only care about "my pension, where is my pension, why am I not getting my pension now, I want more pension, I read that immigrants are taking all the money, get rid of the immigrants and give me more money".
Whereas those people sub 40 care about multiple things, which is why its so hard for the left/centre left here and the US to draw appeal because they have to cater to everyone, while the right just has to cater to greed and selfishness. Get rid of the "other", get you more money (although 'you' are not the person we're talking about).
That graph is a good example of why the Cons (also) lied during the AV vote, because straight away they're gonna be third or fourth choice for all those people under 30 and close third/second for people under 40.
I think that is a pretty reductive view of old versus young. I can only speak for myself here, but I've met quite a few people older than 40 years old that aren't just selfish, one issue dimwits, and I've met plenty of young people who are.
I'd also be cautious about saying right = hates the other and left = welcoming of it, because the left is riven with factional conflict and will tribal up very quickly (as will the right! Human's act tribal!). The Lib Dem/Lab split is the most prominent, but put a Socialist Worker in a room with a Socialist Party member and you'll get conflict. Honestly, one of the tories biggest strengths in the long term is their ability to keep the right together. Brexit being the one time they somewhat fluffed it...
I feel like one of the low key biggest stories of this election is just how divided the generations are in the UK. I mean, look at Yougov's voting intention poll -
If you break those down into left wing and right wing parties, the difference in votes between under 30s and over 75s is incredible. It's much more dramatic than the same split between left and right wing voters in the last US election, and I don't know what the hell might be driving it. This is very much a new trend, as well - if you compare, say, the 2010 results by demographic there was a slight increase in intention to vote Conservative as voters increased in age but it was nowhere near as marked as this.
I think another interesting fact you can see is that the older voters' intent seems solidly behind one party (Conservative), where the younger seem split between Labour/LibDem/Green. I think it was just too many options that the youth vote couldn't solidify behind one party or one group- it got split and diluted between different targets and now another fat windbag is set to send another first-world country hurtling back decades.
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The inability of both, yes, both, Labour and Lib Dems to fail to find a compromise between each other was one of the major factors on this race. The Tories found a compromise: They took the issue of the single issue party for their own, and the single issue party gave them their blessing, even if not fully willingly.
Not to mention that if Labour and the Lib Dems had found a compromise, Boris would have gotten kicked out for another PM, even Corbyn. Now, is too late.
I'm curious what the legal underpinnings are for Scottish independence are.
I mean I know there's the whole realpolitik of it, but like, what's the original agreement that made them part of the UK, what're the chances of Scotland being able to unilaterally declare independence?
The original agreement is basically James the 1st/6th but there was a treaty ~100 or so years later in 1706/7 to integrate both parliaments (and officially form the UK) The Scotland Act of 1998 is the basis of the current devolved goverment. Chances of being able to just declare independance and walk off? functionally zero
What if Nicola Sturgeon marries the Spanish King to forge an alliance with the Crown of Bourbon-Anjou?
King Phillip already has a wife, though. And killing your wife to make space for the next is rather frowned upon in Spanish royalty, I'm pretty sure.
I'm curious what the legal underpinnings are for Scottish independence are.
I mean I know there's the whole realpolitik of it, but like, what's the original agreement that made them part of the UK, what're the chances of Scotland being able to unilaterally declare independence?
The original agreement is basically James the 1st/6th but there was a treaty ~100 or so years later in 1706/7 to integrate both parliaments (and officially form the UK) The Scotland Act of 1998 is the basis of the current devolved goverment. Chances of being able to just declare independance and walk off? functionally zero
What if Nicola Sturgeon marries the Spanish King to forge an alliance with the Crown of Bourbon-Anjou?
King Phillip already has a wife, though. And killing your wife to make space for the next is rather frowned upon in Spanish royalty, I'm pretty sure.
I'm curious what the legal underpinnings are for Scottish independence are.
I mean I know there's the whole realpolitik of it, but like, what's the original agreement that made them part of the UK, what're the chances of Scotland being able to unilaterally declare independence?
The original agreement is basically James the 1st/6th but there was a treaty ~100 or so years later in 1706/7 to integrate both parliaments (and officially form the UK) The Scotland Act of 1998 is the basis of the current devolved goverment. Chances of being able to just declare independance and walk off? functionally zero
What if Nicola Sturgeon marries the Spanish King to forge an alliance with the Crown of Bourbon-Anjou?
King Phillip already has a wife, though. And killing your wife to make space for the next is rather frowned upon in Spanish royalty, I'm pretty sure.
Well actually...
+4
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The inability of both, yes, both, Labour and Lib Dems to fail to find a compromise between each other was one of the major factors on this race. The Tories found a compromise: They took the issue of the single issue party for their own, and the single issue party gave them their blessing, even if not fully willingly.
Not to mention that if Labour and the Lib Dems had found a compromise, Boris would have gotten kicked out for another PM, even Corbyn. Now, is too late.
Labor never was really willing to offer anything though. “ A second referendum where labor supports brexit” was just the same bullshit the tories constantly promised lib dems when they were in coalition.
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
Ok, remove the Scotland comment. Also, of course they gained more votes, but those were Labour votes, which is the point. Everybody that opposed the Tories lost bigly since they now don't need to form a coalition to govern. Vote share is not a mere score board, it has a purpouse. And for all the Lib Dem's "gains", what they can do now is jack shit. On Brexit, they went from having some power to affect the situation to having no power to affect the situation. But, sure, "they gained the most vote share". Like that matters now.
TryCatcher on
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
Ok, remove the Scotland comment. Also, of course they gained more votes, but those were Labour votes, which is the point. Everybody that opposed the Tories lost bigly since they now don't need to form a coalition to govern. Vote share is not a mere score board, it has a purpouse. And for all the Lib Dem's "gains", what they can do now is jack shit.
The Tory party has a majority of 365. No other party can do jack shit in the next parliament. The Lib Dem strategic objective (in my view) is to replace Labour as the left-wing party in the UK and once in that position, use that power to shape British politics and win a majority (a very long term objective). They've closed the gap between them and Labour by 58 seats - not insignificant, and there is huge potential for the Labour leadership challenge to do further damage to the party and close the gap further in the next election.
I'm not seeing them as the biggest losers in this election.
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
Ok, remove the Scotland comment. Also, of course they gained more votes, but those were Labour votes, which is the point. Everybody that opposed the Tories lost bigly since they now don't need to form a coalition to govern. Vote share is not a mere score board, it has a purpouse. And for all the Lib Dem's "gains", what they can do now is jack shit.
The Tory party has a majority of 365. No other party can do jack shit in the next parliament. The Lib Dem strategic objective (in my view) is to replace Labour as the left-wing party in the UK and once in that position, use that power to shape British politics and win a majority (a very long term objective). They've closed the gap between them and Labour by 58 seats - not insignificant, and there is huge potential for the Labour leadership challenge to do further damage to the party and close the gap further in the next election.
I'm not seeing them as the biggest losers in this election.
So, same thing that Corbyn coughed up: Is more important to win the intra-left struggle than to defeat the Tories or stopping Brexit.
Lets face it, Lib Dems were basically a single issue remain party, and giving the choice between “ brexit”, “brexit with more socialism” and “go it alone and hope for a miracle” the choice is pretty obvious. Its better to remain where they are than have another tuition raise fiasco.
The obvious solution would have just been for labor to whip for second ref when they had the chance and then this would have been a referendum, which would have had a lot better chance of winning than a GE. Then either they would be no worse than now, or they would go into the next GE on a big win and with little competition.
But they couldn’t whip for a second ref, because they aren’t a remain party and the leadership doesn’t want remain.
I feel like one of the low key biggest stories of this election is just how divided the generations are in the UK. I mean, look at Yougov's voting intention poll -
If you break those down into left wing and right wing parties, the difference in votes between under 30s and over 75s is incredible. It's much more dramatic than the same split between left and right wing voters in the last US election, and I don't know what the hell might be driving it. This is very much a new trend, as well - if you compare, say, the 2010 results by demographic there was a slight increase in intention to vote Conservative as voters increased in age but it was nowhere near as marked as this.
I think another interesting fact you can see is that the older voters' intent seems solidly behind one party (Conservative), where the younger seem split between Labour/LibDem/Green. I think it was just too many options that the youth vote couldn't solidify behind one party or one group- it got split and diluted between different targets and now another fat windbag is set to send another first-world country hurtling back decades.
Well, one interesting thing is how the LibDems seem to have a fairly consistent 18-21% share across all age groups (except 70+, where they're 14%). They definitely seem to be the party least affected by voter age. I guess that's just what you get when you're broadly centrist?
The conservatives definitely have an advantage in the current situation being Them (+BXP) vs. Everyone Else, though, especially since FPTP is a thing and they just need to get more than any individual opponent.
For all of the talk about how Farage and the Brexit Party would end as spoiler candidates, it was the Lib Dems that ended up being spoiler candidates and they only managed to lose harder and also get kicked out of Scotland in favor of the SNP.
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
Ok, remove the Scotland comment. Also, of course they gained more votes, but those were Labour votes, which is the point. Everybody that opposed the Tories lost bigly since they now don't need to form a coalition to govern. Vote share is not a mere score board, it has a purpouse. And for all the Lib Dem's "gains", what they can do now is jack shit.
The Tory party has a majority of 365. No other party can do jack shit in the next parliament. The Lib Dem strategic objective (in my view) is to replace Labour as the left-wing party in the UK and once in that position, use that power to shape British politics and win a majority (a very long term objective). They've closed the gap between them and Labour by 58 seats - not insignificant, and there is huge potential for the Labour leadership challenge to do further damage to the party and close the gap further in the next election.
I'm not seeing them as the biggest losers in this election.
So, same thing that Corbyn coughed up: Is more important to win the intra-left struggle than to defeat the Tories or stopping Brexit.
It’s disingenuous to suggest that a vote for labor is a vote to stop brexit when they could have three line whipped against brexit and stopped it any time in the last 3 years.
Labor isn’t a remain party, it’s a “abstain or vote your conscious” party, a “second ref but we campaign for a softer brexit” party.
Shit for fucks sake even going back to the first referendum the leading voice for remain was the TORY leader and labor leadership was ambivalent and agnostic towards it.
Jealous Deva on
+13
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
"Defeating the tories" is not something you can do as a left-wing party in the long term. Beat them in elections, sure - but then you face them again in five years with fatigue building up. Sacrificing long term objectives to knock them out in a single election is fairly nonsensical.
Lets face it, Lib Dems were basically a single issue remain party, and giving the choice between “ brexit”, “brexit with more socialism” and “go it alone and hope for a miracle” the choice is pretty obvious. Its better to remain where they are than have another tuition raise fiasco.
The obvious solution would have just been for labor to whip for second ref when they had the chance and then this would have been a referendum, which would have had a lot better chance of winning than a GE. Then either they would be no worse than now, or they would go into the next GE on a big win and with little competition.
But they couldn’t whip for a second ref, because they aren’t a remain party and the leadership doesn’t want remain.
Right now there's a bunch of grumbling from Corbynists looking to someone to blame, and they found a scapegoat on those evil centrists that forced Saint Corbyn to retreat his promise of respecting the results of the referendum. According to them, the Centrists couldn't lose: Either they get what they wanted or they would get rid of Corbyn.
What they don't get is that nobody forced Corbyn to do anything. He tried to "thread the needle" because plain simply he was afraid of a leadership challenge. What Corbyn should have done is to clearly state his position, whatever is Leave or Remain, and face the leadership challenge of the part of the party that opposed it head on. Such abject cowardice, specially on the most important political issue of the UK in a generation speaks incredibly poorly of him, and voters saw that.
Posts
Except not. The Missiles are on subs run by the Royal Navy. One order from the queen and they head south. The one thing that can make her give that order is people talking about how Scotland is a nuclear power and how Westminster better watch out or else they get a nuke express delivery.
She does live quite close to Number 10 after all. Well, close enough for a nuke.
So lets just drop the who owns the nukes debate.
Would England be willing to declare war and fight? If not you have a Taiwan situation where the big question becomes whether Scotland can get international recognition.
The EU would probably not be willing to admit a Scotland that didn’t formally secede and be granted secession though.
England wouldn't fight over leaving but they'll fight over who gets what and who owes what. That's different and contractual and it doesn't rub up against international norms.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Paradox's latest grand strategy: UKII.
Steam | XBL
Not with that attitude it isn't
Indyref II: Electric boogaloo? If it goes ahead, and an independence majority is realised, I assume it’ll be in court for years. If not forever. Say what you will for Johnson, he does not want to be the PM remembered for breaking up the Union.
I’ve always thought his Churchillian schtick wasn’t affectation per se; he wants to be liked, within a circle, and he wants a historical legacy.
A positive one, I mean.
Might be willing to throw NI under the bus, because that one could rumble on past his term, and, as we’ve seen, a lot of people in England barely realise it exists. But Scotland? He’ll fight that one hard, I reckon.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Your mistake here is assuming that the purpose of a us style healthcare service is to help the public. Now, some of them aren't utterly predatory but the ones coming after you in the UK are.
Step 1 : The UK government sells all the hospitals. All of them. US healthcare companies are allowed to buy them. US healthcare companies do buy them
Step 2 : Freedom! No more public money for those silly poors. Everyone will pay their own healthcare now on and buy as much or little insurance as they want.
Step 3 : of course noone needs to buy insurance. Healthcare is a choice!
Step 4 : ooh, bad luck mate. You broke your leg! Now you owe us 500000 pounds. I mean, maybe you can shop around. With your broken leg. But we'll still be billing you 20000 for the bed you are sleeping in.
The tax avoidance laws aren't that much of a big deal. We already meet or exceed the standards for some of them, there's a change to CFCs that is a bit of a pisser bit doesn't really affect individuals, and the rules on exit taxes and hybrid mismatches need to be met by 1 January so we've already missed the boat on avoiding those.
There's some stuff about identifying ownership information on bank and payment accounts to prevent money laundering that's coming in, but it doesn't affect bank accounts outside of the EU. I guess that would technically include us, but I'm not up on my fraud prevention measures so I don't know how much that would affect us. I guess we could become a hub for money laundering, but we may need all the trade we can get
Corbyn seems genuinely incapable of introspection or self-critique, which might explain why his political beliefs have never moved beyond the 70s. Unlike Boris - with whom he shares this trait/defect - and populist leaders like Trump, the fact that he's just so blasé or (at his most passionate) tetchy makes this a drawback; ironically, if he was loudly, stridently unwilling to change his beliefs, he might have been more electable.
Or maybe not. I'm quite sad and drunk right now, so maybe the analysis is off.
Corbyn seems to be channeling Seymour Skinner so much his skin's turning yellow. No, the voters aren't the problem, you idiot. It's you, being so out of touch you can't see you poisoned the fucking well and couldn't step aside for someone else to lead because you're just that unlikable. And now we have a second fat windbag in charge of another first world country who's going to set them back decades, just like the States.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Corbyn can step down at any time - there are leadership structures in place in all political parties to facilitate a leadership election
If you break those down into left wing and right wing parties, the difference in votes between under 30s and over 75s is incredible. It's much more dramatic than the same split between left and right wing voters in the last US election, and I don't know what the hell might be driving it. This is very much a new trend, as well - if you compare, say, the 2010 results by demographic there was a slight increase in intention to vote Conservative as voters increased in age but it was nowhere near as marked as this.
The big problem with labor is that they are running the party platform and elections in a manner fitting a third party like the lib dems or greens instead of like a real opposition, while at the same time refusing to work with any other minor parties in forming coalitions and electoral pacts (which is how you actually win as a minor party). Until they can sort that out they are pretty much fucked indefinitely.
They need to sit down and have an introspection: do they want to be a big tent party with the potential to win by themselves, which may mean compromising on some positions (like not being the third brexit party in a political landscape where 51% are for remain) . Or do they want to maintain ideological flexibility to be a harder left party and accept that it may mean they get 200 seats but can be the senior party in a coalition government rather than getting 250 seats but locked into a minority position for the next 30 years.
The current strategy of “just never compromise on anything, concede every national election to the tories without making any kind of serious effort, and hope that somehow everything works out for the best” doesn’t seem to work very well.
I think new communication technologies have allowed broad political messages to scale very well but have gotten rid of a lot of finesse. If you lean to a party, you get a very top-level view of what that party's views and goals are, while also getting that parties interpretation of what the other side believes. You are socially pressured to align with your peers due to your constant exposure to them (this is true for all generations). Most people aren't built for direct conflict - so once a side is established on social media the other just shuts up (but doesn't actually disappear).
I very rarely hear people on either side take or defend the views attributed to them by their opponents.
Whereas those people sub 40 care about multiple things, which is why its so hard for the left/centre left here and the US to draw appeal because they have to cater to everyone, while the right just has to cater to greed and selfishness. Get rid of the "other", get you more money (although 'you' are not the person we're talking about).
That graph is a good example of why the Cons (also) lied during the AV vote, because straight away they're gonna be third or fourth choice for all those people under 30 and close third/second for people under 40.
I think that is a pretty reductive view of old versus young. I can only speak for myself here, but I've met quite a few people older than 40 years old that aren't just selfish, one issue dimwits, and I've met plenty of young people who are.
I'd also be cautious about saying right = hates the other and left = welcoming of it, because the left is riven with factional conflict and will tribal up very quickly (as will the right! Human's act tribal!). The Lib Dem/Lab split is the most prominent, but put a Socialist Worker in a room with a Socialist Party member and you'll get conflict. Honestly, one of the tories biggest strengths in the long term is their ability to keep the right together. Brexit being the one time they somewhat fluffed it...
Turnout is slightly down from last time.
"This equated to a turnout of 67.23%. The 2017 turnout after all the votes had been counted stood at 68.7%.
Turnout has steadily increased since 2001, when a measly 59.4% - down 11.9% on 1997 - elected Labour's Tony Blair to 10 Downing Street. "
71% in 1997, 77% (!) in 1992. New age politics doesn't get people out the door like it used to apparently
I think another interesting fact you can see is that the older voters' intent seems solidly behind one party (Conservative), where the younger seem split between Labour/LibDem/Green. I think it was just too many options that the youth vote couldn't solidify behind one party or one group- it got split and diluted between different targets and now another fat windbag is set to send another first-world country hurtling back decades.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
The inability of both, yes, both, Labour and Lib Dems to fail to find a compromise between each other was one of the major factors on this race. The Tories found a compromise: They took the issue of the single issue party for their own, and the single issue party gave them their blessing, even if not fully willingly.
Not to mention that if Labour and the Lib Dems had found a compromise, Boris would have gotten kicked out for another PM, even Corbyn. Now, is too late.
King Phillip already has a wife, though. And killing your wife to make space for the next is rather frowned upon in Spanish royalty, I'm pretty sure.
That sounds like an "accident" waiting to happen.
Well actually...
The Lib Dem's haven't been kicked out of Scotland? (They held the same number of seats at 4) while the Tories hold 6 (losing 7) and Labour hold 1 (Losing 6).
I'd also raise my eyebrow at the idea that they lost hardest - They gained the most vote share of any party (double the vote share of the next biggest gainer - the Brexit Party), with Labour losing almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dem's gained.
Dya have some numbers to illustrate your view so I can get my head around it?
Labor never was really willing to offer anything though. “ A second referendum where labor supports brexit” was just the same bullshit the tories constantly promised lib dems when they were in coalition.
Ok, remove the Scotland comment. Also, of course they gained more votes, but those were Labour votes, which is the point. Everybody that opposed the Tories lost bigly since they now don't need to form a coalition to govern. Vote share is not a mere score board, it has a purpouse. And for all the Lib Dem's "gains", what they can do now is jack shit. On Brexit, they went from having some power to affect the situation to having no power to affect the situation. But, sure, "they gained the most vote share". Like that matters now.
The Tory party has a majority of 365. No other party can do jack shit in the next parliament. The Lib Dem strategic objective (in my view) is to replace Labour as the left-wing party in the UK and once in that position, use that power to shape British politics and win a majority (a very long term objective). They've closed the gap between them and Labour by 58 seats - not insignificant, and there is huge potential for the Labour leadership challenge to do further damage to the party and close the gap further in the next election.
I'm not seeing them as the biggest losers in this election.
So, same thing that Corbyn coughed up: Is more important to win the intra-left struggle than to defeat the Tories or stopping Brexit.
The obvious solution would have just been for labor to whip for second ref when they had the chance and then this would have been a referendum, which would have had a lot better chance of winning than a GE. Then either they would be no worse than now, or they would go into the next GE on a big win and with little competition.
But they couldn’t whip for a second ref, because they aren’t a remain party and the leadership doesn’t want remain.
Well, one interesting thing is how the LibDems seem to have a fairly consistent 18-21% share across all age groups (except 70+, where they're 14%). They definitely seem to be the party least affected by voter age. I guess that's just what you get when you're broadly centrist?
The conservatives definitely have an advantage in the current situation being Them (+BXP) vs. Everyone Else, though, especially since FPTP is a thing and they just need to get more than any individual opponent.
It’s disingenuous to suggest that a vote for labor is a vote to stop brexit when they could have three line whipped against brexit and stopped it any time in the last 3 years.
Labor isn’t a remain party, it’s a “abstain or vote your conscious” party, a “second ref but we campaign for a softer brexit” party.
Shit for fucks sake even going back to the first referendum the leading voice for remain was the TORY leader and labor leadership was ambivalent and agnostic towards it.
Right now there's a bunch of grumbling from Corbynists looking to someone to blame, and they found a scapegoat on those evil centrists that forced Saint Corbyn to retreat his promise of respecting the results of the referendum. According to them, the Centrists couldn't lose: Either they get what they wanted or they would get rid of Corbyn.
What they don't get is that nobody forced Corbyn to do anything. He tried to "thread the needle" because plain simply he was afraid of a leadership challenge. What Corbyn should have done is to clearly state his position, whatever is Leave or Remain, and face the leadership challenge of the part of the party that opposed it head on. Such abject cowardice, specially on the most important political issue of the UK in a generation speaks incredibly poorly of him, and voters saw that.