|
Post by jimjam on Jan 8, 2024 12:00:23 GMT
CB,
I think the contentious line in the YG Red Wall piece is the below:
''For Labour, failing to win back the constituencies across the North and Midlands which fell to Johnson’s Conservatives – and indeed to May in 2017 – would spell defeat.''
I think it is hard to see Labour securing an OM without taking those seats back that they lost in 2019. (May be an odd one they don't for very local factors).
This only get's them back to 262, though, and therefore short of an OM by 60 seats or so (SF abstain).
Simply then Labour MUST take additional seats to 2019 losses being recovered.
Where I think you are right is that this does nor mean retaking all those they lost in 2017.
Scotland could see 20 gains for Labour (15 from the SNP) and other seats in more 'remainery' areas that Labour didn't gain in 2017 followed by a wider margin of defeat in 2019 could well fall Labour in 2024.
I think YG are right in the sense that the type of voters Labour lost across 2017 and 2019 (I would add 2015 as well) need to largely return but whether they need to retake all the seats that fell is less clear to me.
Mansfield may well stay Tory for example and Labour could win without it.
I think seats on the edges of cities and in non-left behind but not especially affluent towns, where Labour had a credibility gap in addition to the Brexit gap, could well swing more than in the so called red-wall.
So Ed Balls old seat of Morley and Outwood could return to Labour for example.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 8, 2024 12:20:04 GMT
Hi steve , the point is many who opposed Brexit were prepared to ignore the outcome of the actual vote and adopted a position of seeking to stay 100% within the EU. Attempts to find a compromise position between all in or all out failed, leading us to Johnson as PM. The polarisation and personalisation of the debate help prevent other options - which may have been less damaging/more beneficial - becoming a possibility.
The continued toxic nature of the discourse helps prevent a more mature debate on our future relationship from emerging. The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. So when May's plan failed, a number of compromise options were put forward, but the House didn't go for any of them. This was just as much due to those who wanted No Brexit in any form as it was to the 'headbangers' as you refer to them.
There was lumps of intransigence on both sides of the debate. Also party positioning/loyalty was a major factor - which worked against any compromise emerging.
TBH this is the last thing I will write on this - its virtually impossible to have a reflective sensible conversation on this site about this topic. Too many people on this site quickly revert to use of certain language and a narrative they cant extract themselves from.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 8, 2024 12:22:27 GMT
The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. So when May's plan failed, a number of compromise options were put forward, but the House didn't go for any of them. This was just as much due to those who wanted No Brexit in any form as it was to the 'headbangers' as you refer to them.
There was lumps of intransigence on both sides of the debate. Also party positioning/loyalty was a major factor - which worked against any compromise emerging.
TBH this is the last thing I will write on this - its virtually impossible to have a reflective sensible conversation on this site about this topic. Too many people on this site quickly revert to use of certain language and a narrative they cant extract themselves from. Even if one of them had been passed you think the tory right would have accepted one of these compromises reached with support from other parties? Not a chance. They would have brought her down.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 12:33:07 GMT
The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. So when May's plan failed, a number of compromise options were put forward, but the House didn't go for any of them. This was just as much due to those who wanted No Brexit in any form as it was to the 'headbangers' as you refer to them.
There was lumps of intransigence on both sides of the debate. Also party positioning/loyalty was a major factor - which worked against any compromise emerging.
TBH this is the last thing I will write on this - its virtually impossible to have a reflective sensible conversation on this site about this topic. Too many people on this site quickly revert to use of certain language and a narrative they cant extract themselves from. I wouldn't disagree with your argument post the Referendum result, but you are rather ignoring how we got to that position in the first place. We got there via one of the most disastrous political decisions in our recent history that put our EU membership, and the nature of it, at the mercy of a plebiscite. I also think that you're ignoring the utterly changed post Referendum political world too. Almost assuming that we could instantly return to normal politics as if nothing really very much had happened. The plebiscite, and the way it was conducted, inflamed and polluted our politics to an extent that rational political debate became virtually impossible thereafter. Certainly in relation to the EU anyway. Probably much else too. It was the plebiscite that did that. Our world changed and our politics too. Utterly. A terrible ugliness was born.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 12:36:35 GMT
jimjam
Thanks. I agree with what you say too.
It seems to me, in colourful summary, that the electoral kaleidoscope has shifted so much that old models and assumptions about electoral heartlands and fiefdoms no longer really apply as they once did.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Jan 8, 2024 12:38:59 GMT
Hi steve , the point is many who opposed Brexit were prepared to ignore the outcome of the actual vote and adopted a position of seeking to stay 100% within the EU. Attempts to find a compromise position between all in or all out failed, leading us to Johnson as PM. The polarisation and personalisation of the debate help prevent other options - which may have been less damaging/more beneficial - becoming a possibility.
The continued toxic nature of the discourse helps prevent a more mature debate on our future relationship from emerging. The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. I agree that the more extreme brexiteer elements would have made governing difficult for May, but I think their authority - and the public's tolerance of their views - was greatly enhanced by remainer calls for a second referendum and the rejection of May's deal, with the resulting perception that they were downplaying the need to accept the referendum result on a basic level. And if these elements had made governing for May impossible, and a leadership contest and/or election had followed, it is far from certain that Boris and the "Get Brexit Done" brigade would have won in either contest. After all, it's harder to win an election on a "Get Brexit Done" ticket when Brexit is already done. As a bit of an aside, I think the "advisory only" line really gets brexiteer's backs up in a way that seems counter productive. I'm pro-EU but describing the referendum as "advisory" is a technicality at best and misleading at worse. Yes, there wasn't an Act of Parliament mandating it (as there was for the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum), but the Government was very clear that the result of the referendum would be implemented. We might as well argue that the Good Friday Agreement needn't be respected because the two referenda that ratified it were "advisory only".
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 8, 2024 12:39:00 GMT
CB, I think the contentious line in the YG Red Wall piece is the below: ''For Labour, failing to win back the constituencies across the North and Midlands which fell to Johnson’s Conservatives – and indeed to May in 2017 – would spell defeat.'' I think it is hard to see Labour securing an OM without taking those seats back that they lost in 2019. (May be an odd one they don't for very local factors). This only get's them back to 262, though, and therefore short of an OM by 60 seats or so (SF abstain). Simply then Labour MUST take additional seats to 2019 losses being recovered. Where I think you are right is that this does nor mean retaking all those they lost in 2017. Scotland could see 20 gains for Labour (15 from the SNP) and other seats in more 'remainery' areas that Labour didn't gain in 2017 followed by a wider margin of defeat in 2019 could well fall Labour in 2024. I think YG are right in the sense that the type of voters Labour lost across 2017 and 2019 (I would add 2015 as well) need to largely return but whether they need to retake all the seats that fell is less clear to me. Mansfield may well stay Tory for example and Labour could win without it. I think seats on the edges of cities and in non-left behind but not especially affluent towns, where Labour had a credibility gap in addition to the Brexit gap, could well swing more than in the so called red-wall. So Ed Balls old seat of Morley and Outwood could return to Labour for example. I rather agree with that. The article seems to be saying that winning back the Red Wall seats on its own without gains elsewhere would not produce a Labour majority. As a statement that is true - but also very unlikely in reality to arise in that Labour gains across the Red Wall are almost certain to be accompanied by very substantial advances elsewhere. What does remain uncertain is whether those seats which showed massive pro-Tory swings in 2017 and 2019 will now show a mega Swingback to Labour. I think of seats such as Bassetlaw- Grimsby - Sedgefield - Nuneaton - Warwickshire North - Mansfield - Ashfield etc. The evidence to date is far from clear. Unlike many commentators I was not too impressed by Labour's Tamworth by election win last October. Whilst it represented a very big swing since 2019, it did not fully compensate for the pro-Tory swing recorded there at earlier elections. Compared with 2005 the result actually still showed a tiny swing to the Tories!
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 12:47:35 GMT
Graham
I liked your post generally but you not being "too impressed" with a 23.9% swing to Labour in the Tamworth by election, their second biggest since 1945, somewhat took me aback. You need to reveal your by election win impressiveness thresholds, I think!
Besides, I take your observations as a personal slight on my on the ground campaigning skills! It was me wot wun Tamworth!!
🤔😁
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 8, 2024 12:50:55 GMT
The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. I agree that the more extreme brexiteer elements would have made governing difficult for May, but I think their authority - and the public's tolerance of their views - was greatly enhanced by remainer calls for a second referendum and the rejection of May's deal, with the resulting perception that they were downplaying the need to accept the referendum result on a basic level. And if these elements had made governing for May impossible, and a leadership contest and/or election had followed, it is far from certain that Boris and the "Get Brexit Done" brigade would have won in either contest. After all, it's harder to win an election on a "Get Brexit Done" ticket when Brexit is already done. As a bit of an aside, I think the "advisory only" line really gets brexiteer's backs up in a way that seems counter productive. I'm pro-EU but describing the referendum as "advisory" is a technicality at best and misleading at worse. Yes, there wasn't an Act of Parliament mandating it (as there was for the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum), but the Government was very clear that the result of the referendum would be implemented. We might as well argue that the Good Friday Agreement needn't be respected because the two referenda that ratified it were "advisory only". I can't accept what you say regarding the nature of the referendum. It absolutely was advisory and the execrable level of campaigning would have been subject to far oversight if it had been binding from the outset. If the government wanted a binding referendum they should have held one with all the implications for scrutiny of campaigning and funding and the level of proper informing of the public required. It was the failure of the government and others to make that clear but it doesn't change the fact. It's like taking mock 'A' levels and then being told actually they were the real exams.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 12:55:24 GMT
Sunakered starts his election campaign with the slogan voting Labour would take " us back to square one" given that brexitania is markedly worse , more divided and less internationally relevant than the U.K. was in 2010 square two doesn't seem like a particularly good place to be.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 8, 2024 12:57:11 GMT
Surely the whole problem with Brexit is that many Leavers didn't heed or want to understand the warnings about EU intransigence with regard to third party countries. A similar point applies to the Rejoiners. They seem to assume that the EU would welcome us back, no questions asked. I've not seen any evidence of that.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 8, 2024 12:57:40 GMT
Graham I liked your post generally but you not being "too impressed" with a 23.9% swing to Labour in the Tamworth by election, their second biggest since 1945, somewhat took me aback. You need to reveal your by election win impressiveness thresholds, I think! Besides, I take your observations as a personal slight on my on the ground campaigning skills! It was me wot wun Tamworth!! 🤔😁 My point is that over the period 2005 - 2019 Tamworth saw a 24.3% swing to the Tories - indeed compared with 1997 the pro- Tory swing was 28.9%. The 23.9% by election swing recovered most of that - but not all of it.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 8, 2024 13:13:19 GMT
TBH this is the last thing I will write on this - its virtually impossible to have a reflective sensible conversation on this site about this topic. Too many people on this site quickly revert to use of certain language and a narrative they cant extract themselves from. Agreed. The constant use of terms like 'headbangers' isn't conducive to constructive discussion. Ironically it's not a bad description of those who habitually use the term.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 8, 2024 13:15:48 GMT
steve - "Sunakered starts his election campaign with the slogan voting Labour would take " us back to square one".." Well given that even Tory MPs are now saying publicly that things are worse now than in 2010, going back to square one would be an improvement. At least it would be square. Not this wobbly, weak, feeble, indeterminate morass that we find ourselves in now.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 13:22:16 GMT
The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step. The point of brexit was to get con 15 years in power. to do that, they needed another 10-20% or so on top of their core vote. Thats what is was all about, nothing else mattered. Since this 10% was pretty much hard core brexiteers, then whatever outcome had to be hard core brexit. No continued membership was possible because the core of the free market is inextricably linked with continuing to follow its rules, and very possibly freedom of movement. Continued obeisance to any EU rules was a nono. As was freedom of movement, because we needed that freedom to cut immigration, as now we see clearly.
The views of 50% of the nation or so were totally irrelevant. Doesnt matter what sort of disaster happens now, 14 years or so as it may turn out was an excellent deal those concerned were very happy to make. I wouldnt be surprised if even May thinks she achieved her life goal by becoming PM.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 13:38:30 GMT
I can't accept what you say regarding the nature of the referendum. It absolutely was advisory and the execrable level of campaigning would have been subject to far oversight if it had been binding from the outset. If the government wanted a binding referendum they should have held one with all the implications for scrutiny of campaigning and funding and the level of proper informing of the public required. It was the failure of the government and others to make that clear but it doesn't change the fact. Didint we have a supreme court case saying the referendum would have been unlawful as conducted if it were binding, because so many citizens abroad never got to vote? And if they had, it might have been enough to reverse the result? If some are saying it was effectively binding, then it was also effectively unlawful. Which is besides the point, the point was to win another parliamentary term for con. Had they simply not carried out brexit then they would have lost the next election, full stop. It was not politically credible to not follow through. Whats interesting would be had it been a remain vote, then very likely by now we would have had a second referendum. Or a labour government, depending how it went.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 13:39:51 GMT
Surely the whole problem with Brexit is that many Leavers didn't heed or want to understand the warnings about EU intransigence with regard to third party countries. A similar point applies to the Rejoiners. They seem to assume that the EU would welcome us back, no questions asked. I've not seen any evidence of that. We will no doubt be required to rejoin on rather worse terms. I blame that entirely on the leavers, who voted for Britain to become a vassal state of the EU. (obviously not sold to them as that)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 14:04:51 GMT
Cable accuses Tories of scapegoating Ed Davey over Post Office scandal - but says all ex-ministers involved should apologise Sir Vince Cable, the former Lib Dem leader and business secretary from 2010 to 2015, when concerns about the safety of the Post Office Horizon convictions were mounting, has given an interview to the World at One about the scandal. Here are the main points.
Cable accused the Tories of trying to scapegoat Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, over the Post Office scandal. Asked if Davey had questions to answer, Cable said: All ministers who dealt with this, under the previous Labour government, and even more under our successors, the Conservative government, had dealt with this problem in the same way that Ed Davey did. He is now being highlighted. I suspect the reason is that this is election year and it’s quite good for somebody to take a try to make a scapegoat of a Lib Dem minister. I don’t think this is a party political matter at all.
There obviously is a terrible failure of governments in general and of the criminal justice system. And that’s why the independence investigation is taking place …
Trying to find a scapegoat is a understandable, human reaction. But it’s not actually the heart of the problem.
He backed Keir Starmer’s call for a system to be set up to allow all convictions to be overtuned en masse. Cable said this would be justified even if it meant some guilty people being exonerated. He said as business secretary he did not have the power stop the Post Office prosecutions. Ministers only had the right to make requests, he said. Parliament had given the Post Office enormous powers not just to operate commercially, but to run a kind of private police force a bit like the railways. There was mounting concern, I think, in the department about this, but it wasn’t at all clear what we could do to intervene.
He said the Post Office was given considerable independence so that decisions like those about which post offices might have to close would not be matters for ministers.
He said he was only once approached by a delegation of sub-post office operators about miscarriages of justice when he was business secretary. “It wasn’t something that was constantly on the radar of me, and probably other ministers,” he said. He said he was happy to apologise for what happened. Asked if he had nothing to apologise for, he replied: No, I wouldn’t be so arrogant. I think any minister who’s involved in this, as I said, before our government and after it, has some responsibility … I’m very happy to apologise, as all ministers who are involved in this I think should …
I feel a sense of responsibility that I and a lot of other people, had we known how to do it, would have intervened more actively.
I've quoted this in full because I think it's fair comment,as Cable pointed out all relevant government ministers of all three main parties fell short.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Jan 8, 2024 14:10:47 GMT
I agree that the more extreme brexiteer elements would have made governing difficult for May, but I think their authority - and the public's tolerance of their views - was greatly enhanced by remainer calls for a second referendum and the rejection of May's deal, with the resulting perception that they were downplaying the need to accept the referendum result on a basic level. And if these elements had made governing for May impossible, and a leadership contest and/or election had followed, it is far from certain that Boris and the "Get Brexit Done" brigade would have won in either contest. After all, it's harder to win an election on a "Get Brexit Done" ticket when Brexit is already done. As a bit of an aside, I think the "advisory only" line really gets brexiteer's backs up in a way that seems counter productive. I'm pro-EU but describing the referendum as "advisory" is a technicality at best and misleading at worse. Yes, there wasn't an Act of Parliament mandating it (as there was for the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum), but the Government was very clear that the result of the referendum would be implemented. We might as well argue that the Good Friday Agreement needn't be respected because the two referenda that ratified it were "advisory only". I can't accept what you say regarding the nature of the referendum. It absolutely was advisory and the execrable level of campaigning would have been subject to far oversight if it had been binding from the outset. If the government wanted a binding referendum they should have held one with all the implications for scrutiny of campaigning and funding and the level of proper informing of the public required. It was the failure of the government and others to make that clear but it doesn't change the fact. It's like taking mock 'A' levels and then being told actually they were the real exams. Which bit don't you accept? I admit that there was no legal obligation on the Government to implement the referendum result. I'm just saying that the British public understood that the result of the referendum would be implemented - that is clearly how both campaigns treated the issue, how the media reported it and - most importantly - what the Prime Minister explicitly said would happen. People should be able to trust the Government's word without binding them in legal handcuffs beforehand. On this basis, if the referendum result had been ignored, for most people it would have felt like the opposite of your example - it would be like taking what you were told were real 'A' levels only to be told afterwards they were just mocks.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 8, 2024 14:17:42 GMT
For those (few?) of us whose main reason for supporting the EU is because of its primary objective of replacing destructive national rivalry with mutually beneficial co-operation, the absence from the project - for the time being at least - of the UK is not a major concern.
From the UK's perspective, the EU's 100% successful record of avoiding armed conflict between member states is surely a bigger prize than any pluses for the UK economy. That so much of the brexit debate on here still revolves around questions of narrow self interest is dispiriting and suggests that our absence from the project is no bad thing if it gives us time to gain a realistic appreciation of where our true interests lie.
It's arguable that it took utter defeat in 1945 to shake Germany out of its nationalistic delusions and give it the mindset to play a positive role in striving for enduring peace and prosperity on our continent. While I wouldn't wish similar calamity on the UK, I do think we need to have the scales shaken from our eyes by a clear, unmistakable demonstration of where our best interests lie. So, taking the long view, I'm happy to see the Mercians and JiBs of this world have their way for the next decade or so.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 8, 2024 14:18:08 GMT
Sunakered starts his election campaign with the slogan voting Labour would take " us back to square one" given that brexitania is markedly worse , more divided and less internationally relevant than the U.K. was in 2010 square two doesn't seem like a particularly good place to be. To use a somewhat tortuous analogy - in 2010 we were on about square 85 and then we slid down a large snake called austerity, and second large snake called Brexit, a few smaller snakes called Covid, Putin's fuel cost crisis and Truss-onomics and are now down on square 2. Everyone is hoping Keir Starmer has a very large ladder somewhere, but it seems unlikely. Three of those snakes, plus mismanaging aspects of Covid, are directly due to the government.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 8, 2024 14:41:11 GMT
Or alternatively, nebulous, such as "Blake's 7" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake's_7#Regular_characters There are 12 regular characters listed for a notional group of 7, as some came, some went, and some even came back again. Which pretty much sounds like some of UKPR2, really Never saw it, as I don't much like sci-fi & it was on at a time when I was always out. I indoctrinated my daughter agin sci-fi so I didn;t have to see the films. We were stuck somewhere once when she was small. The only film on offer was sci-fi. She refused to see it! Your education has been sadly lacking. Star Trek, both the TV series and the films, represents a standard to which we should aspire. Even in the original 60s TV series there were principal characters who were Japanese (Sulu) and Russian (Chekov) as well as Michelle Nichols as Uhura. The whole concept represented the ideals of the founders of the United Nations, projected forward by several centuries. Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard is still my favourite Captain.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jan 8, 2024 14:57:34 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter 'Personally, I think the polarisation caused by the campaign itself and its aftermath, has meant many have become far more pro-EU than they were before 2016.' I'm interested by your comment and wondering if you could elaborate. One of the reasons I avoid discussions about Brexit on this forum is that opinions are polarised to an extent that, in my experience (and I'm in an area that was very strongly Remain), is out of kilter with feeling amongst the general population. At the time of the referendum there were a lot of reluctant or unenthusiastic Remainers and I've no reason to think that their attitude has changed much. I was one of them and although I'm much more certain now than I was in 2016 that leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do, I'm no more enthusiastic about the EU and the way it operates than I was back then. With hindsight, I think Labour made a mistake in not supporting Theresa May's deal and in the way it approached the earlier votes that were held to explore support for potential alternative approaches. (I seem to remember that Clarke proposed a Customs Union-only approach, arguing that it was worth having such a minimalist option on the table in order to maximise support for retaining at least some economic links with the EU and adding that he'd be voting in favour of anything and everything that represented a closer relationship than no deal/hard Brexit. I checked the votes afterwards and that's exactly what he did; it's a pity that more MPs didn't follow his example.) I suppose I sould add that I'm not blaming Lab for the deal that was done and I mention the votes because they're clearly identifiable pivot points. In the aftermath of the referendum I think we were unlucky that both main parties were led by very tribal politicians. It's a great pity that May wasn't more willing to build a cross-party majority for a deal, but I find it very hard to believe that Corbyn would ever have countenanced helping a Tory PM to a parliamentary majority, even in order to protect the UK's main trading relationship.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 8, 2024 15:09:49 GMT
Don't you threaten me you you jumped up Lib Dem sh**ter. Ed Davey has questions to answer, and I've reposted from other sources on Twitter. If you don't like it - yes, please take up with the site owner and moderator. But don't use it as a threat. Jumped up little s**t calling me a Tory. You got into bed with them in 2010. *** ADMIN *** Firstly, *Leftieliberal : I do not take requests on banning members of this board. It is not your place to threaten another member as such. jib : Despite what Leftieliberal posted, that was not an excuse to flame and diretly abuse another member. If you think another member has behaved inappropraiately, you can alert me to the post in question. Other than that, eithor ignore or respond politely pointing out where you think they are in the wrong. Unless the spat continues, I will draw a line under it, but, I want to see no repeat in the future. Should a repeat occur, I may not be willing to give out a ticking off and leave it at that. Mark as the administrator of this board you have a responsibility to stop the circulation of libellous statements on it. In this case jib repeated a statement from an outside source that was both untrue (and provably untrue) and defamatory about Ed Davey. There is a great deal of difference between posting of opinion and posting of lies, whether about members of this board or outsiders. I suggest that you re-read the Terms of Service that you signed up to when you set up this board, specifically Section 17, titled "YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFAMATORY COMMENTS".
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 15:11:36 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 8, 2024 15:13:07 GMT
Wasn't the key mistake amidst the ongoing debate about our membership of the EU, deciding to hold a binding non-threshold based plebiscite as the means of resolving it? This was Cameron's grievous and historic blunder. . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. It's also worth remembering too that the plebiscite was conceived primarily as a stunt to ease serious Tory electoral and internal party discipline problems posed by the rising force of UKIP. There was no higher mission at stake than that really. (My dotted line). Regarding your first sentence: Cameron did not call the referendum "as the means of resolving" the "ongoing debate about our membership of the EU". He had no belief whatsoever that he would have to implement a referendum. So it's all about your final second sentence Batty - him promising a referendum was all about trying to make it look to the UKIP types that voting for his Conservatives should be their way forward. If he and his party hadn't done such a good job on destroying their witless Liberal partners there would probably have been another hung parliament whereby the Liberals would have stymied the referendum and he'd have been able to say "damn, what a pity, I really, really wanted a referendum but those blighters have stopped me". A combination of his party's annihilation of their Liberal 'friends' plus the promise of a referendum that brought UKIP types on board gave him his 2015 victory, one that turned out to be pyrrhic as he then had no choice but to have the referendum that he never wanted, and within a year of his electoral 'triumph' he was gone.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 8, 2024 15:19:14 GMT
An interesting article by YouGov's Director of Political Analytics on the state of play in the Red Wall. Quite upbeat for CON, as he argues that they can still win without the Red Wall, but LAB can't. Maybe, maybe not, but I can't help thinking that he may be underestimating the desire of much of the electorate per most recent polling to summarily dismiss the Tories at the earliest opportunity. ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-the-red-wall/I'll have a pint of what that bloke is on.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 15:21:15 GMT
leftieliberal I doubt that jib would appreciate me saying anything in his defence. But it's entirely possible that his particular obsession tends to mean he'll post any old crap that attacks the liberal democrats. I doubt he's normally intentionally dissembling but rather when he finds anything that appears to support his objectives his fact checking abilities leave the room. It's sometimes slightly difficult to find the truth, particularly when you don't want to find it, when the vast majority of the Tory legacy media and their Twitterees Just concentrate on the negatives. The so called journalists who work for these organisations in the same way as Spaffer Johnson are integrity vacuums when it comes to this matter. All that being said it's Mark whose administrator of the site and it's up to him how he does it.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 8, 2024 15:23:02 GMT
Wasn't the key mistake amidst the ongoing debate about our membership of the EU, deciding to hold a binding non-threshold based plebiscite as the means of resolving it? This was Cameron's grievous and historic blunder. . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. It's also worth remembering too that the plebiscite was conceived primarily as a stunt to ease serious Tory electoral and internal party discipline problems posed by the rising force of UKIP. There was no higher mission at stake than that really. (My dotted line). Regarding your first sentence: Cameron did not call the referendum "as the means of resolving" the "ongoing debate about our membership of the EU". He had no belief whatsoever that he would have to implement a referendum. So it's all about your final second sentence Batty - him promising a referendum was all about trying to make it look to the UKIP types that voting for his Conservatives should be their way forward. If he and his party hadn't done such a good job on destroying their witless Liberal partners there would probably have been another hung parliament whereby the Liberals would have stymied the referendum and he'd have been able to say "damn, what a pity, I really, really wanted a referendum but those blighters have stopped me". A combination of his party's annihilation of their Liberal 'friends' plus the promise of a referendum that brought UKIP types on board gave him his 2015 victory, one that turned out to be pyrrhic as he then had no choice but to have the referendum that he never wanted, and within a year of his electoral 'triumph' he was gone. The problem with that is that the Liberal Democrats also had an 'in/out' referendum in their manifesto in 2015. Maybe they would have argued for a slightly different version or a different sort of campaign, but there would likely still have been something of the sort. In England at least, if you wanted to avoid a referendum you had to vote Labour.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 8, 2024 15:24:47 GMT
crossbat11Wigan Athletic welcome Manchester United to the DW Stadium in the Emirates FA Cup Third Round. Over 22,500 supporters have secured their seats for the now sold-out fixture, which will be Latics’ highest home attendance since Aston Villa on the final day of the 2012/13 Premier League season. ************************** Dunno what was so special about Villa.
|
|