A deal that can be unilaterally converted to no deal could get through. A hard border at Hadrian's Wall might just square the circle.KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 7:40 am Can any deal even get to the confirmatory referendum in the first place?
British Politics Guide
Re: British Politics Guide
Re: British Politics Guide
Well, big days since I've been away.
We need to talk about Gavin... but first, we need to talk elections.
What are the local elections?
It's hard to say - they're an arcane process nobody really understands. Who are elected? In most cases, "councillors", people who have "seats" in "councils". Which councils? Well, a variety. Local government in the UK is the result of centuries of reforms, most of them reversing the previous reforms in an endless pendulum of combination and division, often leaving footnotes and exemptions. But lets say, the people being elected are in "district councils", of which there are a few hundred. The big division is between districts that are parts of administrative counties, and hence subject to county councils, and districts that aren't. The former can be 'district councils' or 'borough councils' - it's a ceremonial distinction, with 'borough' being a title granted to larger or more important towns. Districts/boroughs in this sense can be rural, or can contain one or more relatively small towns (I don't know, but I'd guess most towns in these districts have under 100,000 people). Districts that aren't part of administrative counties can be divided into 'unitary authorities', which were split from their counties recently and are still part of the 'ceremonial county', and 'metropolitan districts' (or boroughs), which were split from their counties a long time ago and aren't part of the ceremonial county. For instance, the city of Brighton and Hove (consisting of the towns of Brighton and Hove and surrounding urban areas) is a unitary authority, and, like many UAs, is also a city (though it became a UA before it became a city), but it is still part of the ceremonial county of East Sussex, and indeed the historic or ancient county of Sussex. Clear? Well, all three types of district have elections - and so do county councils (above some district councils) and parish councils (below district councils) and town councils (ditto), and so likewise do the London Boroughs (which, like everything in London, are different from everything outside London) and the City of London (where everything is different from the rest of London). Some UAs and metropolitan boroughs directly elect mayors, as do some but not all Combined Authorities (amalgamations of adjacent urban areas, like London but less so). Then there are the elections for the London Assembly, and...
Needless to say, everybody doesn't vote at once. Elections are staggered, so that there's one every year. I don't think there's anyway to understand who votes in which year - not only do some councils have elections and others not, but some councils are elected all at once while others are elected in staggered tranches over several years.
This year, it's simple - most, but not all, English district councils outside London had at least some of their members elected. Some didn't, and there were no elections in London, Scotland or Wales, but there were elections in Northern Ireland. English counties didn't have elections, though most of their districts did. There were also presumably town and parish elections, but who cares.
Most of these elections are the usual SP (simple plurality, i.e. FPTP) elections, but some aren't. Some are, for some bizarre reason, "plurality at large", which is to say MNTV (multiple non-transferrable vote), while NI has STV.
Often, local elections are held at the same time as european elections, but oh no, that would make too much sense, so this year we're having both elections just a short time apart.
Why does this matter?
Two reasons. One, local government does important stuff. And more importantly, two, local elections are a traditional barometer of party support - they're an opportunity for the public to "send a message".
This doesn't entirely make sense. Local elections are at least partly about local issues - not much, but a bit, which is why local issue groups and notable local independent candidates can succeed in them. And local seats aren't really all comparable - clearly a county council seat is more important than a non-metropolitan district council, and does a non-metropolitan district council seat really matter as much as a seat in a major city council?
But, everyone sees them this way, and, to be fair, the oddities probably even out across the whole of the elections. Although one important issue is that they can't be compared directly year-to-year, due to the baroque systems determining who votes when.
So, what happened?
Hoo boy.
First, more housekeeping: "scores" in local election can be measured in two ways - in seats/councillors, or in councils controlled (that is, where one party has a majority). The conservatives traditionally win local elections (because non-tories are concentrated in cities, which have more people per district).
The headline: the government lost around 25% of its seats. [caveat: not all councils have declared yet. But there's only a few to go, so...]
That's... huge. They lost 1,326 seats (approx.) - that's the largest loss by any party since John Major's Tories were hammered with a 2,018-seat loss in 1995. Since then, there have only been a handful of losses of 500 seats or more. Major in 1991, Blair in 1999, Thatcher in 1981 and 1977, and Callaghan in 1976 are the only other times a leader has suffered a loss of over 1,000 seats.
The Tory losses were deep and ubiquitous: they lost control of over 40 councils (nearly 1/3rd of all the councils they controlled).
Bad night? Well...
...the thing is, Labour had a bad night too. They lost 80 seats - not a historic disaster by any means, but not what you'd expect of a party marching to government against a rival in disarray. Their losses, however, seem to have been more localised, and they lost only 6 councils.
Finally, the third big loser were UKIP. They lost 145 of their 171 seats.
The winners, on the other hand, were the Lib Dems. They doubled both their seat tally and their councils controlled tally, restoring them to levels not seen since they entered the Coalition. There were also proportionally large gains for the Greens, and for various independents and local parties.
The big shift overall was that the number of NOC councils (No Overall Control - i.e. hung) almost doubled.
What does this mean?
A lot. But it's not clear what exactly. Superficially, massive Tory losses mean trouble for the PM; but Labour's failure to capitalise is simultaneously reassuring for the conservatives - the general election is much more a two-horse race. It's great news for the Lib Dems... but they traditionally overperform in local elections*.
The rise in NOC and setbacks for both main parties look like a protest vote, and there's an obvious culprit: Brexit. But it's not always clear what the relationship is. For instance, Labour lost Leaver Sunderland... because of Remainers. Remainers left Labour for Lib Dems and Greens, which, in a SP system, left Labour vulnerable to attacks from Leavers. So how much of the anger is due to Remainers, and how much is due to Leavers? It's unclear, which is why both parties continue to try to appeal to both sides.
We shouldn't get carried away. Vote projections using this as an exit poll proxy suggest the same as we have now: hung parliament, Tories with the plurality. Local elections don't always mirror general elections - Labour got hammered last year, and soared back to deny May a majority only a month later. That list above of -1000 defeats? Almost all those leaders won the following general election.
At this moment, I think the only concrete thing I can say is that it looks like there's been a shift of Remainer Tories toward the Lib Dems - that's the big reason for the Tory losses.
But it is, right now, a massive slap in the face for the Tories, and two fingers up for Labour too.
What does the PM say?
That the message from the public is simple an unambiguous: they completely support her in her efforts to deliver a strong and stable Brexit as soon as possible, in accordance with the deal she's made with the EU, and Parliament needs to rally around to deliver that deal that the public have demanded, as soon as possible.
*the secret to why the Lib Dems still exist is that, right back to the days of the Liberals in the 1920s, they've maintained a strong network of local representatives. This provides a consistent bank of young political candidates and trained activists, and a long-term identity in the public mind. This is probably why they've been able to keep going, without the wild swings seen by single-issue, short-term parties like UKIP who, lacking organisation, have to rely on transient passions and enthusiastic amateurs.
We need to talk about Gavin... but first, we need to talk elections.
What are the local elections?
It's hard to say - they're an arcane process nobody really understands. Who are elected? In most cases, "councillors", people who have "seats" in "councils". Which councils? Well, a variety. Local government in the UK is the result of centuries of reforms, most of them reversing the previous reforms in an endless pendulum of combination and division, often leaving footnotes and exemptions. But lets say, the people being elected are in "district councils", of which there are a few hundred. The big division is between districts that are parts of administrative counties, and hence subject to county councils, and districts that aren't. The former can be 'district councils' or 'borough councils' - it's a ceremonial distinction, with 'borough' being a title granted to larger or more important towns. Districts/boroughs in this sense can be rural, or can contain one or more relatively small towns (I don't know, but I'd guess most towns in these districts have under 100,000 people). Districts that aren't part of administrative counties can be divided into 'unitary authorities', which were split from their counties recently and are still part of the 'ceremonial county', and 'metropolitan districts' (or boroughs), which were split from their counties a long time ago and aren't part of the ceremonial county. For instance, the city of Brighton and Hove (consisting of the towns of Brighton and Hove and surrounding urban areas) is a unitary authority, and, like many UAs, is also a city (though it became a UA before it became a city), but it is still part of the ceremonial county of East Sussex, and indeed the historic or ancient county of Sussex. Clear? Well, all three types of district have elections - and so do county councils (above some district councils) and parish councils (below district councils) and town councils (ditto), and so likewise do the London Boroughs (which, like everything in London, are different from everything outside London) and the City of London (where everything is different from the rest of London). Some UAs and metropolitan boroughs directly elect mayors, as do some but not all Combined Authorities (amalgamations of adjacent urban areas, like London but less so). Then there are the elections for the London Assembly, and...
Needless to say, everybody doesn't vote at once. Elections are staggered, so that there's one every year. I don't think there's anyway to understand who votes in which year - not only do some councils have elections and others not, but some councils are elected all at once while others are elected in staggered tranches over several years.
This year, it's simple - most, but not all, English district councils outside London had at least some of their members elected. Some didn't, and there were no elections in London, Scotland or Wales, but there were elections in Northern Ireland. English counties didn't have elections, though most of their districts did. There were also presumably town and parish elections, but who cares.
Most of these elections are the usual SP (simple plurality, i.e. FPTP) elections, but some aren't. Some are, for some bizarre reason, "plurality at large", which is to say MNTV (multiple non-transferrable vote), while NI has STV.
Often, local elections are held at the same time as european elections, but oh no, that would make too much sense, so this year we're having both elections just a short time apart.
Why does this matter?
Two reasons. One, local government does important stuff. And more importantly, two, local elections are a traditional barometer of party support - they're an opportunity for the public to "send a message".
This doesn't entirely make sense. Local elections are at least partly about local issues - not much, but a bit, which is why local issue groups and notable local independent candidates can succeed in them. And local seats aren't really all comparable - clearly a county council seat is more important than a non-metropolitan district council, and does a non-metropolitan district council seat really matter as much as a seat in a major city council?
But, everyone sees them this way, and, to be fair, the oddities probably even out across the whole of the elections. Although one important issue is that they can't be compared directly year-to-year, due to the baroque systems determining who votes when.
So, what happened?
Hoo boy.
First, more housekeeping: "scores" in local election can be measured in two ways - in seats/councillors, or in councils controlled (that is, where one party has a majority). The conservatives traditionally win local elections (because non-tories are concentrated in cities, which have more people per district).
The headline: the government lost around 25% of its seats. [caveat: not all councils have declared yet. But there's only a few to go, so...]
That's... huge. They lost 1,326 seats (approx.) - that's the largest loss by any party since John Major's Tories were hammered with a 2,018-seat loss in 1995. Since then, there have only been a handful of losses of 500 seats or more. Major in 1991, Blair in 1999, Thatcher in 1981 and 1977, and Callaghan in 1976 are the only other times a leader has suffered a loss of over 1,000 seats.
The Tory losses were deep and ubiquitous: they lost control of over 40 councils (nearly 1/3rd of all the councils they controlled).
Bad night? Well...
...the thing is, Labour had a bad night too. They lost 80 seats - not a historic disaster by any means, but not what you'd expect of a party marching to government against a rival in disarray. Their losses, however, seem to have been more localised, and they lost only 6 councils.
Finally, the third big loser were UKIP. They lost 145 of their 171 seats.
The winners, on the other hand, were the Lib Dems. They doubled both their seat tally and their councils controlled tally, restoring them to levels not seen since they entered the Coalition. There were also proportionally large gains for the Greens, and for various independents and local parties.
The big shift overall was that the number of NOC councils (No Overall Control - i.e. hung) almost doubled.
What does this mean?
A lot. But it's not clear what exactly. Superficially, massive Tory losses mean trouble for the PM; but Labour's failure to capitalise is simultaneously reassuring for the conservatives - the general election is much more a two-horse race. It's great news for the Lib Dems... but they traditionally overperform in local elections*.
The rise in NOC and setbacks for both main parties look like a protest vote, and there's an obvious culprit: Brexit. But it's not always clear what the relationship is. For instance, Labour lost Leaver Sunderland... because of Remainers. Remainers left Labour for Lib Dems and Greens, which, in a SP system, left Labour vulnerable to attacks from Leavers. So how much of the anger is due to Remainers, and how much is due to Leavers? It's unclear, which is why both parties continue to try to appeal to both sides.
We shouldn't get carried away. Vote projections using this as an exit poll proxy suggest the same as we have now: hung parliament, Tories with the plurality. Local elections don't always mirror general elections - Labour got hammered last year, and soared back to deny May a majority only a month later. That list above of -1000 defeats? Almost all those leaders won the following general election.
At this moment, I think the only concrete thing I can say is that it looks like there's been a shift of Remainer Tories toward the Lib Dems - that's the big reason for the Tory losses.
But it is, right now, a massive slap in the face for the Tories, and two fingers up for Labour too.
What does the PM say?
That the message from the public is simple an unambiguous: they completely support her in her efforts to deliver a strong and stable Brexit as soon as possible, in accordance with the deal she's made with the EU, and Parliament needs to rally around to deliver that deal that the public have demanded, as soon as possible.
*the secret to why the Lib Dems still exist is that, right back to the days of the Liberals in the 1920s, they've maintained a strong network of local representatives. This provides a consistent bank of young political candidates and trained activists, and a long-term identity in the public mind. This is probably why they've been able to keep going, without the wild swings seen by single-issue, short-term parties like UKIP who, lacking organisation, have to rely on transient passions and enthusiastic amateurs.
Re: British Politics Guide
Another fun thing: climate protesters and their ongoing war against society.
The climate protests in London had been planned to continue until climate change was stopped - their demands specifically required the world to produce zero carbon emissions by 2025, if not before. They have, however, now agreed a ceasefire while the government implements this, but plan to return to the struggle in the coming months. Their chief strategies are to raise consciousness by getting themselves arrested by any means necessary, and to piss off everybody in the country by bringing London to a standstill through non-violent obstruction.
It's hard to be angry at them, however, because they're so amusing - it's as though they set out to be a parody of themselves. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion it may all be a massive 4chan troll that's gotten out of hand.
Needless to say, as good leftists campaigning for the environment, their first targets were public transport and the leader of the Labour party (who, despite having no power, has failed to end climate change). While their activists were forcing people into cars by shutting down the rail network, supporters flew in from all around the world to deliver speeches on the importance of reducing our carbon footprint - Emma Thompson, for example, gave a moving speech apologising for not having been arrested earlier in the week, because while she was dedicated to the cause absolutely, she'd needed to nip over to LA and back for the weekend for a party. This was eloquently defended by the group's spokesman, a 21-year-old white man who went to a £20,000-a-year private school, who argued that climate change activists didn't have to abide by the same principles they advocate for others, as everything they do is for the Greater Good.
While we wait for the latest round of protests, the latest morsel is the group's guide to prison. As said, the group's expressed intention is to have as many people arrested as possible (only being arrested shows that you're a person of true value), so, naturally, they prepare their members for what it's like in prison.
Fortunately, prison's a great time, apparently. Most prison officers are black, apparently, so there's no violence in prisons (only white people can be violent) (94% of prison officers are actually white) (last year there were 324 deaths in custody), and prison offers an excellent opportunity for "practicing yoga", "journalising" and "creative art". Best of all is solitary confinement, which gives a chance to explore meditation while taking "as many naps as you want". No wonder so many people are signing up! [oddly, they're all white and rich]. However, other, pseudo-progressive activists in namby-pamby fields like human rights and prison reform have dared to suggest that this prison guide may present a slightly out of touch view of what the prison "experience" is really like...
The climate protests in London had been planned to continue until climate change was stopped - their demands specifically required the world to produce zero carbon emissions by 2025, if not before. They have, however, now agreed a ceasefire while the government implements this, but plan to return to the struggle in the coming months. Their chief strategies are to raise consciousness by getting themselves arrested by any means necessary, and to piss off everybody in the country by bringing London to a standstill through non-violent obstruction.
It's hard to be angry at them, however, because they're so amusing - it's as though they set out to be a parody of themselves. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion it may all be a massive 4chan troll that's gotten out of hand.
Needless to say, as good leftists campaigning for the environment, their first targets were public transport and the leader of the Labour party (who, despite having no power, has failed to end climate change). While their activists were forcing people into cars by shutting down the rail network, supporters flew in from all around the world to deliver speeches on the importance of reducing our carbon footprint - Emma Thompson, for example, gave a moving speech apologising for not having been arrested earlier in the week, because while she was dedicated to the cause absolutely, she'd needed to nip over to LA and back for the weekend for a party. This was eloquently defended by the group's spokesman, a 21-year-old white man who went to a £20,000-a-year private school, who argued that climate change activists didn't have to abide by the same principles they advocate for others, as everything they do is for the Greater Good.
While we wait for the latest round of protests, the latest morsel is the group's guide to prison. As said, the group's expressed intention is to have as many people arrested as possible (only being arrested shows that you're a person of true value), so, naturally, they prepare their members for what it's like in prison.
Fortunately, prison's a great time, apparently. Most prison officers are black, apparently, so there's no violence in prisons (only white people can be violent) (94% of prison officers are actually white) (last year there were 324 deaths in custody), and prison offers an excellent opportunity for "practicing yoga", "journalising" and "creative art". Best of all is solitary confinement, which gives a chance to explore meditation while taking "as many naps as you want". No wonder so many people are signing up! [oddly, they're all white and rich]. However, other, pseudo-progressive activists in namby-pamby fields like human rights and prison reform have dared to suggest that this prison guide may present a slightly out of touch view of what the prison "experience" is really like...
Re: British Politics Guide
One major difference between the local elections and future elections is that there will be the Brexit party and Change UK, currently polling high and reasonable respectively, especially in EU election polls.
There was actually a single election of a single seat in Scotland: a byelection in Dundee due to the death of a Labour councillor, the vacancy being filled by a Scottish Nationalist, whose party now commands a majority of the council.
There was actually a single election of a single seat in Scotland: a byelection in Dundee due to the death of a Labour councillor, the vacancy being filled by a Scottish Nationalist, whose party now commands a majority of the council.
Re: British Politics Guide
Interesting question for students of contemporary British politics: What sort of result would have caused her to say anything else? The Conservatives losing every seat they held?Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 2:52 pm What does the PM say?
That the message from the public is simple an unambiguous: they completely support her in her efforts to deliver a strong and stable Brexit as soon as possible, in accordance with the deal she's made with the EU, and Parliament needs to rally around to deliver that deal that the public have demanded, as soon as possible.
Self-referential signatures are for people too boring to come up with more interesting alternatives.
-
KathTheDragon
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:57 am
- Location: Disunited Kingdom
Re: British Politics Guide
Cynically, I doubt it.
-
Yiuel Raumbesrairc
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:00 pm
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: British Politics Guide
What would it profit a politician to characterize an electoral defeat negatively? Everyone shits on Teresa May for saying all the stupid things she has no choice but to say. Of course she has to pretend the Conservative Party represents "strong and stable" leadership. Of course she has to say that her latest deal is new and exciting. What else is she going to do? Her government is the most straight forward example I've ever seen of someone caught between a rock and a hard place. I can blame her for holding on to power far beyond her effective expiration date, but I can't blame her for spouting nonsense while she's there.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.
-
KathTheDragon
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:57 am
- Location: Disunited Kingdom
Re: British Politics Guide
Her alternative is to resign.
-
Frislander
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am
Re: British Politics Guide
But it's also striking just how much she's worsened the situation for herself, because nobody was proposing the deal she's currently pushing before she'd negotiated it, which essentially meant she could only rely upon the support of the politically nubile and naive within her own party, who would likely have followed her with whatever kind of Brexit she went for, to the point where I wonder if she would have fared relatively better in parliament if she had caved into the hard no-dealers and taken most of the party along with her.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:37 am What would it profit a politician to characterize an electoral defeat negatively? Everyone shits on Teresa May for saying all the stupid things she has no choice but to say. Of course she has to pretend the Conservative Party represents "strong and stable" leadership. Of course she has to say that her latest deal is new and exciting. What else is she going to do? Her government is the most straight forward example I've ever seen of someone caught between a rock and a hard place. I can blame her for holding on to power far beyond her effective expiration date, but I can't blame her for spouting nonsense while she's there.
Re: British Politics Guide
Doing relatively better wouldn't have helped - she'd still be failing. The problem is that we expected to negotiate the new arrangement before the UK left, and we haven't. The big mistake was not insisting on a unilateral exit clause for the open border arrangement.
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: British Politics Guide
What does "the open border arrangement" mean here? The Good Friday agreement, the backstop, or the Maastricht Treaty? The last two have a unilateral exit clause: Article 50. The first also has a unilateral exit clause; it's called starting a civil war.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.
Re: British Politics Guide
I wholeheartedly support Extinction Rebellion in their cause for a more radical approach against climate change, a major threat to life on Earth as we know it. Sal's post does not change this support, but enlightens me about a certain negative aspect of it, which has since been retracted.
She had several choices instead claiming to have "strong and stable" leadership, "strong and stable" leadership, "strong and stable" leadership. One simple way was just to vary her wording. Another was to incarn what she was saying. Another to admit defeat. Another to find a quality she actually had, like stubbornness/determinedness, and focus on that.
Again, for the deal, there were many options: negotiate a better deal, have realistic expectations, change the deal when the first one doesn't work, take other viewpoints into account from the beginning or admit that the deal isn't exciting, it's just the best she could do with the constraints she herself put on the deal.
It would profit a politician in showing themselves as honest and realistic and able to put themselves into question.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:37 am What would it profit a politician to characterize an electoral defeat negatively? Everyone shits on Teresa May for saying all the stupid things she has no choice but to say. Of course she has to pretend the Conservative Party represents "strong and stable" leadership. Of course she has to say that her latest deal is new and exciting. What else is she going to do? Her government is the most straight forward example I've ever seen of someone caught between a rock and a hard place. I can blame her for holding on to power far beyond her effective expiration date, but I can't blame her for spouting nonsense while she's there.
She had several choices instead claiming to have "strong and stable" leadership, "strong and stable" leadership, "strong and stable" leadership. One simple way was just to vary her wording. Another was to incarn what she was saying. Another to admit defeat. Another to find a quality she actually had, like stubbornness/determinedness, and focus on that.
Again, for the deal, there were many options: negotiate a better deal, have realistic expectations, change the deal when the first one doesn't work, take other viewpoints into account from the beginning or admit that the deal isn't exciting, it's just the best she could do with the constraints she herself put on the deal.
Re: British Politics Guide
The backstop, which is not part of any ratified treaty. How will Article 50 apply to it? We'll already have left the EU before it comes into effect.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:23 am What does "the open border arrangement" mean here? The Good Friday agreement, the backstop, or the Maastricht Treaty? The last two have a unilateral exit clause: Article 50. The first also has a unilateral exit clause; it's called starting a civil war.
The Maastricht Treaty does not impose open borders - there are still customs as well as immigration borders between Britain and France.
Re: British Politics Guide
Sal's post seems to take the stances that protesting anything at all is not only stupid but laughable (since he doesn't mention why this protest in particular is stupid, and I'm assuming he's not a climate change denier), and/or protests are bad unless they cause no disruption and incur no arrests, and/or any members being inconsistent in their views and actions (e.g. using air travel) discredits the whole movement somehow. I take issue with all of these.MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:24 am I wholeheartedly support Extinction Rebellion in their cause for a more radical approach against climate change, a major threat to life on Earth as we know it. Sal's post does not change this support, but enlightens me about a certain negative aspect of it, which has since been retracted.
Re: British Politics Guide
I would not adopt any of those stances either. THe negative aspect I meant was the prison advice.Nerulent wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:02 pmSal's post seems to take the stances that protesting anything at all is not only stupid but laughable (since he doesn't mention why this protest in particular is stupid, and I'm assuming he's not a climate change denier), and/or protests are bad unless they cause no disruption and incur no arrests, and/or any members being inconsistent in their views and actions (e.g. using air travel) discredits the whole movement somehow. I take issue with all of these.MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:24 am I wholeheartedly support Extinction Rebellion in their cause for a more radical approach against climate change, a major threat to life on Earth as we know it. Sal's post does not change this support, but enlightens me about a certain negative aspect of it, which has since been retracted.
Re: British Politics Guide
My opinion, and admittedly this is incredibly naive on my part, in that I haven't had much time to give any real thought to it beyond "oo, wouldn't that be nice" is that a) we don't have term limits in the UK (as far as I'm aware. I mean, come on, we had William Hague as our MP from 1989 to 2015?), and b) we don't appear to have any sort of post-term "tribunal" or anything looking into whether they held up what their constituents actually wanted.Frislander wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 6:36 amBut it's also striking just how much she's worsened the situation for herself, because nobody was proposing the deal she's currently pushing before she'd negotiated it, which essentially meant she could only rely upon the support of the politically nubile and naive within her own party, who would likely have followed her with whatever kind of Brexit she went for, to the point where I wonder if she would have fared relatively better in parliament if she had caved into the hard no-dealers and taken most of the party along with her.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:37 am What would it profit a politician to characterize an electoral defeat negatively? Everyone shits on Teresa May for saying all the stupid things she has no choice but to say. Of course she has to pretend the Conservative Party represents "strong and stable" leadership. Of course she has to say that her latest deal is new and exciting. What else is she going to do? Her government is the most straight forward example I've ever seen of someone caught between a rock and a hard place. I can blame her for holding on to power far beyond her effective expiration date, but I can't blame her for spouting nonsense while she's there.
The second point, of course, being "how" you know what your "constituents" thought. The Referendum in 2016 was obviously one way of telling what they thought directly, but on what basis are we supposed accept that any MP even agree with what we think?
As for "nubile", well, I'm not sure that's what anyone really votes for. I mean, what sort of Conservative would May be if one day she came to the realisation that, say, Corbyn might have the better set of ideas? (not saying he does, but, well, "what if?" and all that). People tend to vote for a set of core principles, embodied by either a (perception of the) Party, or a (perception of the) person. They don't really seem to want someone who will change their minds assuming something contradictory proves "better". They want what they want.
I can see where Moose-tache is coming from when "May doesn't change her mind". As nice as it would be to have a Government maybe actually listen to Parliament or the "majority of people", the way things work in the UK right now, that doesn't seem to be their primary concern. They're there to appease the voters who allowed the Party to come to power, not the masses.
(from a more "sane" perspective, I wouldn't expect a UK response for maybe 4 hours at best. Night shifts, man).
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: British Politics Guide
The backstop is part of the negotiation, so yes, article 50 without any agreement ends the backstop. Once the UK is out of the EU they can dig a moat across Ireland if they want. As for the Maastricht Treaty, I'm happy that you're willing to do a little googling, but this was clearly shorthand, since it's actually a long list of treaties that lead to the open borders currently enjoyed by most of Europe. If you consider any amount of "customs as well as immigration" to be not an open border, then I'm not sure what problem you have with it. It's not like any border is going to get "more open" after Brexit.Richard W wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:55 amThe backstop, which is not part of any ratified treaty. How will Article 50 apply to it? We'll already have left the EU before it comes into effect.Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:23 am What does "the open border arrangement" mean here? The Good Friday agreement, the backstop, or the Maastricht Treaty? The last two have a unilateral exit clause: Article 50. The first also has a unilateral exit clause; it's called starting a civil war.
The Maastricht Treaty does not impose open borders - there are still customs as well as immigration borders between Britain and France.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.
-
Moose-tache
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Re: British Politics Guide
Yes, I've often wondered why retail stores don't list their markup on the sticker, or why restaurants don't put a plaque on the door explaining every time they've had a health code violation. Aren't there any brave people left? If Teresa May had more honesty and integrity than anyone else on Earth, she would still say "this latest defeat has been a great victory," because that's her bloody job. No, it wouldn't ingratiate her with the voters to say "I cocked up." That's not how politics has ever worked, so there's no incentive for her to do that, no matter how cathartic it might be for you.
I did it. I made the world's worst book review blog.