Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

If we did have another Referendum, I would hope that they would draw up some cast iron rules for it e.g. not say it's advisory when politically it wasn't allowed to be advisory. Or have a Referendum Commission, as the RoI does, so that there is proper oversight and downright lies are not permitted.

Ideally, with a Parliamentary democracy, I would prefer not to have one and for Parliament to do its job properly. There is no reason why that can't happen with a hung Parliament - really thrash out issues and find compromises which suit a majority in the country.

peregrina
That's far too much hope in one post. Tories are going from Cameron to May to Mogg. It won't happen that way.
Besides, sorry to have to write this but we have all faced the level of absence of facts/data from Leavers in the last year. That sort of lack of argument needs a counter argument of the same nature.
It is also very hard to demand a commission that oversees that sort of referendum. To undo the first one, if we don't fight the second one in exactly the same way, it will be a headache in itself. Once we are out of all this, we can start working on the anger behind it all and the mechanisms for future refrenda of any sort.
Right now, all we can hope is to finish all of this fiasco ASAP and with as little loss as possible. The ticking clock is the major hurdle for forming any sort of commission for overseeing it all.

When I wrote the countr argument should be of the same nature, I meant that it shouldn't be complicated. For example, if 52/48 is enough to start Brexit, it is also good enough to stop it too. That sort of thing. No shite like two third majority etc.

I'm pragmatic about angering Leavers, because looking at the relative risks, either course of action will cause pain and anger.

Angering the 40% or whatever hardcore Leavers of the 75 or so who voted

vs running the economy over the cliff and angering the 90% who will be poorer - particularly the JAM Leavers who will become No Longer Managing
and some of the currently comfortable will move down to become JAMs.

and an entire young generation with damaged prospects - great anger &'despair there.

Judging by the fury of most Leavers at the idea a 2nd referendum, they would regard that as unfair and the hardcore would not accept the legitimacy of a Remain decision after a 2nd referendum

It's a cop out.
If a majority in Parliament decide a cliff edge is sufficiently dangerous, they should just take responsibility

Many Leavers "know" Brexit can't be that bad, or it would never have been put to a referendum.

Like a doctor would not offer an unnecessary operation or medication that is far too risky

I suspect anyway, the govt will hang on to their idea of Brexit until the last possible moment, out of fear for the consequences.

imo, There will either be a disorderly Brexit or a disorderly Remain - at the last possible moment

If they ever finally decide that cancelling Nrexit is less political risk than an economic crash and SE England becoming a lorry path, the

it's probably going to be about a month before the clock runs out - no time to do anything except frantically call Barnier, Merkel's & co and slam the A50 STOP button

Surely it will be sooner than that - there will be a reluctant climbdown over EU citizens' rights but the real sticking points are going to be NI which the EU does not want to fudge (despite UK's happiness to do this) and, even more crucially, the bill to leave. We can't move forward until these two matters are solved and one is a circle that is seemingly impossible to square with the current red lines in place and the other will be something that no political party would want to be seen to agree to.

In that case, we can kind of understand why Labour should let this fuck up be stopped too by Tories. That will be the ultimate ending. No responsibility and your opponent goes down, alongwith a huge amount of money of this country going down without accountability for it.

I know it is a bit old now , being from 22nd June , but whilst there are too many Wendy's in the country , we cannot currently do a u-turn . Approx 18.34 minutes in .

A legal challenge to the DUP deal.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40547775
(The names of the characters are a little comedic.)

I know it is a bit old now , being from 22nd June , but whilst there are too many Wendy's in the country , we cannot currently do a u-turn .

I really don't think you can judge from this one person on this particular programme. If we took the last year's worth of QT audiences as typical, anyone would think that 50% of the country were rabidly right wing xenophobic and anti-immigrant, and that UKIP would have swept the board in the latest election. They didn't, their vote collapsed. I would put Wendy down as one of the noisy 15% and even I suspect planted to be in the audience.

I hope you are right Peregrina, I really do. To me it wasn't so much what she said , it was the way she said it , that really struck fear into my heart . I know it is easy to laugh at her and her rationale , but as someone up thread said they laughed at the Nazi's too at first . Perhaps that is me being overly dramatic , I honestly hope it is . To see people whipped up into such a frenzy of foaming madness , well it just isn't British is it

It is very scary frumpety.

To me it wasn't so much what she said , it was the way she said it , that really struck fear into my heart . I know it is easy to laugh at her and her rationale , but as someone up thread said they laughed at the Nazi's too at first

And the idea Trump could be president was utterly ridiculed at one point (the ridicule continues while he's in office).

I know what you mean about her attitude. I don't even find the collapse of the ukip vote reassuring.

People didn't fail to vote for ukip again because they aren't Xenophobic. They didn't vote for them because they've got what they wanted.

Some people actually quite a lot of people just hate the EU. I don't really know why, the EU medal in our lives?

Faisal Islam @ FaisalIslam
^Lost Commons majority to leave Euratom:
8 Conservative MPs have now praised/ RT'd/ liked this Vaizey/ Reeves piece:^

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/08/must-save-vital-nuclear-treaty-allies-eu/amp/
Why we must save vital nuclear treaty with our allies in the EU

takes 7 Tory MPs switching sides from Con/ DUP to lose majority.
praising this piece: Benyon, Morgan, Boles, Neill, Soubry, Sandbach, Crabb

..that's 7 -obviously then add in Vaizey. Also on New Clause 192 A50 Bill -Ken Clarke also voted to stay in Euratom - so 9 Con MPs on record

... plenty of you asking about Labour's position. Front bench backed and whipped support of A50 Bill amendment to stay in Euratom in Feb

... there were 5 Labour rebels against that position on staying in Euratom, voted with Govt - though 1, Gisela Stuart, no longer an MP

That said... All the Labour Leavers went with the Labour whips position on Umunna Single MArket amendment - to abstain, not to vote against

This all chimes with a lot of what was discussed upthread:

Faisal Islam @faisalislam
Vince Cable to Marr: "I'm beginning to think that Brexit may never happen, the problems are enormous, divisions in major parties enormous"

Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
The popular rage and revolt against the elites will surpass anything seen so far if the establishment succeeded in thwarting Brexit.

Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico
This is obviously true. The disturbing thing is the mocking complacency with which such warnings are greeted.

Simon Cox @SimonFRCox
No complacency here. If British people reverse Brexit, expect serious violence from nationalists, racists & fellow-travellers 1/
Brexit debate is often anti-democratic: "UK ppl never agreed to EU" "EUref was stolen". Denying opponents legitimacy is dangerous. 2/
Leave campaign capitalized on decades of unprocessed fantasy abt "Great" Britain's place in world & Europe mobile.twitter.com/simonfrcox/status/865474127909355520 3/
EURef is most important ever electoral victory for Brit/Eng nationalists: they celebrate it as backing their beliefs 4/
Nationalist Brexiters deny British ppl's democ right to reject SMexit. Far-right Express & Mail push anti-Parlt & courts "traitor" frame 5/
Only one side of Brexit has threatened & used violence. Anti-violence Brexiters shd contest anti-democrtc language, as Remainers shd w/ Rs 6
Most importantly, A50 should only be withdrawn by a Gov with an unequivocal mandate, if needs be, from EURef 2. No tricks, no fudge. 7/
UK's social peace & democratic future may depend on how any EU-turn is handled by political & social leaders. /8
Badly handled, (non)Brexit could lay ground for decades of far-right violence & terror against visible leaders & most vulnerable 9/
Regardless, Brit/Eng nationalists v likely to use terror to "defend" Brexit.Just as Jo Cox's killer did. Leave activists shd take care 10/10

Good stuff in the obs today about tuition fees:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/09/the-guardian-view-on-abolishing-student-fees-easier-to-say-than-to-do
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/08/dont-need-double-first-to-see-university-funding-in-chaos
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/tuition-fees-scrapped-debts-graduates-andrew-adonis

They ask, rhetorically, Yet just removing fees risks being an even bigger bung to the better off. Labour needs to spell out exactly how it would work, how it could be done without capping student numbers again, and how it would improve the student experience.

That's a lot of assumptions in there... the most fundamental of which is that the only valid form of adult education is a traditional university degree. Once you free yourself from these shackles, it seems to me that the answer is obvious, in that you leave universities to do what they do well (which, by definition, is only relevant to a minority) and work on improving the quality and standing of other forms of education. I don't see the degree-ification of everything as positive; I mean I really don't care whether a midwife can write a well-structured essay (in the same way that I wouldn't want a journalist to deliver a baby).

This is what I am talking about: this anger found a way through Brexit vote. I am not arguing whether right or wrong. It is the way it is. It happened. We have to deal with it. So now, the best way to deal with this sort of anger is to use exactly the same model. We can't overload the angry and frustrated with information. It will do the opposite. This is where Cameron went terribly wrong (unless there are other sinister explanations).
I don't think there are any easy solutions out of it. What I do believe is a vote brought us here, a vote should take us back or it won't make sense to any of the die hard leavers and we will keep going back in circles. At least then it will be easy to argue back their way: you lost, this is democracy, please bring arguments backed with data or go always
If this is how it goes, I will have some respect for May for appointing staunch Leaversm/poster boys to key posts so at least some of the arguments can be won by a mere "oh you have had your chance and you did bugger all with it" hopefully. Future of this country is in the hands of 85%-for-Remain youth. They are keenly observing what is happening right now. I feel hopeful when I think of this.

eeeeew
Do we have ANY solid data on how much university graduates do we "need"? Just because we need midwives, doesn't mean we can tell students that you are going to have to pay for your studies despite the massive housing, travel and food costs.
We haven't seen any such data thoroughly publicised yet. Yes we do need other skills. All skills are important. But the lack of choice if it comes down to money is whats bothering.
Economies are going to have to be knowledge based. I just can't see that happening without a LOT of training. Universities can adopt accordingly because there is a setup in place. Inventing the wheel is not a good option I think.
Again, we need a thorough scientific analysis of what and where this country is going to have to evolve. It needs to come from academia essentially. I won't touch anything coming from any think tanks or private bodies with a barge pole.

I was at Ed Vaizey's Count at the GE, the results of which came after 5 am. In his acceptance speech, which he kept mercifully short, he said that the results meant that hard Brexit was dead and the public had had enough of austerity. Fine, but I muttered to myself, "Why didn't you say that in the last Parliament?" The same question has to be asked, why he didn't vote against leaving Euratom? It affects his constituents directly, since it houses one of the principle nuclear establishments at Harwell. He need have had no fear of his Remain constituents - his is a seat where Tory votes are weighed.

Well, this is getting interesting:

Theresa May to ask Jeremy Corbyn for help in delivering Brexit

May will urge parties to “come forward with your own views and ideas” after acknowledging the “reality” of being Prime Minister is “rather different” than it was a year ago.

“We may not agree on everything, but through debate and discussion – the hallmarks of our Parliamentary democracy – ideas can be clarified and improved and a better way forward found."

"The single market is a concept that requires membership of the European Union so what we’re looking for is tariff-free access."

Can anyone please explain the things that are wrong with this statement? I have so far understood that you don't have to be EU member to access single market.

From
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-06/corbyn-to-meet-with-barnier-as-he-anticipates-snap-u-k-election?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

lala
Corbyn is going to see Barnier. May be that's the trigger.

I can understand the feeling that you can only undo a referendum with another one. But I'm uneasy about referenda. They are dangerous and can allow divisive results as we know.
Before a 2nd one, there'd have to be a concerted effort to provide accurate and truthful information to voters, to outlaw biased stories in the press, to stop money causing mischief and to somehow prevent fake news in social media. I'm not sure that'd be possible in a short time frame.
So, could you imagine another Leave result after a Ref campaign like the last one? I shudder.

May will urge parties to “come forward with your own views and ideas” after acknowledging the “reality” of being Prime Minister is “rather different” than it was a year ago.

She may as well release a distress flare.

The problem with May approaching Corbyn is that he might actually try to help her achieve Brexit (against most of his supporters' wishes).
A C Grayling quite clearly states that JC is a problem in Section 5 of this article.
'A politician who Knows He Is Right is a dangerous politician.'

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/a-c-grayling-has-6-reasons-to-prove-why-brexit-will-be-stopped-1-5098052