Westminsterenders: The Ersatz ImitationThread

[OlennasWimple]

I am no RedToothBrush, so I'm not going to try to emulate her exception OP style.

Here, though, in the interests of carrying on our conversations about WTF is going on with Brexit and the weird political world we find ourselves in right now, is a sort of continuation thread

(Hurry back Red, we need you!)

Having worked in the pharma industry, I can say that in some cases it really does look like there's little reason to cure an illness when it's more profitable to manage them. However I also know that most people who work in r&d aren't that sort of arsehole and the way drug development works is that there's nearly always someone else on the same track so if company a hides it then there's probably company b,c and d right behind them. A cure for anything, should it exist, would come out probably fairly rapidly.

But then I do usually try to look beyond appearances

Current research is demonstrating that there is a genetic angle to all disease. So treatments are starting to be tailored to the person.

Or, in other words, the view of disease before the Enlightenment was pretty much spot on ....

Not only is there a genetic element - there's also an underlying rhythm which seems to affect how the body metabolises medicines.

(This is from my DB who works in clinical research ...)

People keep talking about a new party, but I can't see what space in the political spectrum it is supposed to occupy.

If you want a determined anti-Brexit stance, you've got the Lib Dems and the Greens to choose from (at least out of the UK-wide parties). I suppose you might be to the right of both, and still anti-Brexit, so perhaps there's a space for a party that pursues the neoliberal trickle-down ideology (with maybe some austerity for kicks) alongside a remain agenda. I'm not sure how much support that would get.

If you just want opposition to a hard Brexit, but are willing to accept a softer Brexit in a "I don't like it but I've got to go along with it" kind of way, then, well, the Lib Dems are still there for you and there's a chance that Labour will go in that direction. So if Labour's middle-ground social democratic policies are off-putting, you've still got the Lib Dems, and if you quite like the idea of spending some money to invest in the economy, you might like Labour's manifesto, and if you're looking for something a bit less authoritarian you can either wander back to the Lib Dems or the Greens.

So basically, all paths lead to the Lib Dems. Except this is a strategy that doesn't seem to be working. At best a new party would split the Lib Dem vote, and at worst it would it would guarantee a Tory victory to attract some reluctant Labour supporters who see them as too taxy or too Brexity for their tastes and are still annoyed about tuition fees.

But the Lib Dems have got baggage. It might seem unfair but it's true. So, there is space for something fresh and clean.

So basically, all paths lead to the Lib Dems. Except this is a strategy that doesn't seem to be working.

Saying this as a lifelong Labour voter...but perhaps we need a few Tory and Labour MPs to defect to the Lib Dems.Then the party needs to be (slightly) rebranded as a 'new' party, thereby leaving the coalition and tuition fees conceptually behind. Stuggling to think of a new name though....

I've seen Democrats touted quite a bit recently. It's a shame Social Democrats has been used although the Social bit might scare some off. .

I started to warm towards Chuka Umunna but now I think he is more of an arrogant git than a proper statesman.

All politicians are a bit arrogant, some are just better at hiding it than others. But he's openly anti Brexit so he's okay with me. God knows we need more of them!

I started to warm towards Chuka Umunna Yup, just that

Osborne and Gove spotted at Bayreuther Festspiele together...

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/10/epic-night-out-gove-osborne-visit-opera-german-holiday

I have a theory, having been forced to shift my perspective from people with Cancer being them to us, that people cling to their attitudes to Cancer as a comfort blanket. You constantly hear people victim blaming as they make insinuations about peoples lifestyles and attitudes as the cause of their illness and death, and there is no shortage of snake oil salesmen selling dubious preventative methods / treatments to exploit those attitudes.

The Scientific reality is that the causes are almost certainly a complex interplay between genetics and environment, not just a direct genetic cause like the known Breast Cancer genes but also a genetic disposition to for instance being vulnerable to the hormone load that is increased in the modern environment by drugs and pollution and possibly a roulette game of chance mutations. The vast majority of known factors for Breast Cancer for instance are genetic, or related to hormone load, breastfeeding, onset of periods etc. Lifestyle factors account for such a small percentage of risk that whilst it is not a bad idea to be fit etc. it effectively won't reduce your chances of getting or dying from Breast Cancer. There is scientific evidence that being brave and strong won't make any difference either. However that means that we are all effectively staring at Cancer down the barrel of a gun in a game of Russian roulette. However it is far more comforting to think that if you lead a healthy lifestyle and are strong and have the right attitude you will never become one of "them"

In the same way the leave campaign played to the security of the illusions of superiority and entitlement that were cultivated by Empire with easy uncomplicated, and in Boris's case Churchillian, statements that the baby boomers could relate to and be inspired by.

I have a feeling that a new party will be seen as thoroughly suspicious among the younger Labour voters. No idea about others but if any Labour MPs defect to this new party and are comincidentally found To be from the Blairite side, we will only lose the game to Tories again. It's an equivalent of what happened right after Corbyn came. Call it cult or whatever, this is what is likely to happen. Then where will we be?
Wes Streeting (Labour MP) tweeted along these lines yesterday. Makes sense to me. It is more like you will be damaging the Labour rebranding and still losing votes. This GE is a big warning that LibDem aren't going to work any time soon. The best way is to do it from inside Labour. Otherwise, it is a doomed strategy.

Instead of holding massive discussions inside their party, Umunna et al went for a new one and shoot themselves in the foot. That's what the history will remember them for.

One very big issue here is how we are just sort of thinking yet that the UK will vote Remain if referendum was held today. Issue is we have no certainty of how substantive this will be. nations don't change overnight. We will still have nearly the same number of Leavers and I think it is very hard to just go ahead and say we must get a new referendum now. I don't know what the solution is except keeping this discussion going. This will become a pressure cooker eventually. Till then, some of the damage will already be irreversible by at least we will have the youth on our side? I have faith in our youngsters.
A new party will only defuse and distract that pressure. It is a very bad idea.

Our parliamentary system obfuscates what any particular group wanted. The only research amongst younger voters I have seen showed that they voted for protecting our welfare state and health service, against Brexit, protecting our Schools and Universities including the fee issue, because of immigration and security in that order. As an alumnae of a politically active, but also very globally focused, university where I have actually bumped into Corbyn seemed a nice man / it was during the sexy old salty seadog Mumsnet thing so I may have had to suppress a giggle I don't get the impression that the debate there favours Corbyn / momentum/ tribal politics over the actual issues, especially Brexit. There were certainly plenty of young voters who turned out not just to vote but to campaign in those Libdem constituencies where they were the best alternative to the Tories. If you were to characterise the tribal motivation for many voting last time it would be not Tory, rather than pro Labour or Libdem.

I would not underestimate the chances of a party that did embrace the centre ground, whatever you say of Blair he won two elections from there.... And those voters on the Centre ground who may have voted for Labour because it was the best chance of getting a Tory out, might think differently if the choice was between a new centre party embracing the sensible talking politicians from all sides and Corbyn and McDonnell with a realistic chance of getting into government.....

If you were to characterise the tribal motivation for many voting last time it would be not Tory, rather than pro Labour or Libdem.
Exactly. It wasn't pro Corbyn cultists that got it done. I have no idea who will come forward who has the capacity of being the poster boy of this new party. Vince Cable? Chuka? I can bet my right hand that even Lucas won't work. It is all about what is on "show" and what is out there that people can look and trust. I would trust Lucas may be but has she got the kind of influence Corbyn's Labour has right now? NO idea what the answer is but I am sure a new party is not the answer specially if it goes anywhere near Blair or his legacy. I know there were many good things he did but I have no idea how people miss the point that this is the generation of the hunger games that were written on a war started by Blair. It is a massive cultural/human/I don't know what shift. It is just my feeling that this won't work at all.

The last landslide win in Westminster was indeed on a centrist prospectus. Unfortunately, a sample of size 1 is too small to determine whether there is a causal relationship between these two facts. Also, this ain't 1997 any more: the centre now comes with its own baggage. For me the epitome is a structure like PFI which appeals to both left (investment in public services, yay) and right (no tax increases, yay), but turn out too good to be true (there's a reason why people don't finance house purchases from credit cards, and it's not just because the banks don't let you). Short-termism at its worst, there.

I have found myself idly wondering of late, whether there is actually something iniquitous about treating every vote equally ?

We all love the idea of one person-one vote, but how does that translate into a landscape where people who will be less affected (if at all) by the consequences of their vote can disproportionately impose their will on people who will have to actually live well beyond that action ?

I'm asking a question, not suggesting a solution ...

www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/10/experts-strike-back-how-economists-proved-right-on-brexit

(TL;DR)

uk.businessinsider.com/lord-heseltine-a-window-of-opportunity-to-stop-brexit-2017-8

Former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Heseltine tells BI that changing public opinion and government "paralysis" means Brexit can be stopped.

The Tory peer says Jeremy Corbyn is now a serious contender to be Britain's next prime minister.

Theresa May will not fight another election as leader of the Conservatives, he says, and Boris Johnson is not fit to run the party or the country.

(contd) ...

As I have nothing decent to add, I bring you this on the day when my gin supply gets topped up of my birth.

Twitter at its finest

How FPTP buggers it up
New parties need several years and a least a couple of GEs to build up.
PR allows the time; FPTP doesn't - and the center party would need to win the next GE, or be too late to affect Brexit.

A new centre party would just split the center/ left vote and rescue the Tories from oblivion - maybe even give them that landslide May wanted

I've seen this centre party dream before before. I remember the hopes - then dashed and the unforeseen consequences that changed our country permanently, definitely not in the direction we wanted ....

When the SDP split off from Labour in the early 1980s, the 1983 GE produced a massive Tory majority:

Tory 42% ==> 397 seats
Labour 28% ==> 209 seats
SDP Liberal Alliance (centre party) 25% ==> 23 seats
Turnout 73%

Much better to use an existing party.
Ideally, MPs of both major parties agree to put the public before party and vote accordingly on Brexit bills

Much better to use an existing party.

I agree. With Blair's Labour landslide, he had pulled the party to the centre, and the Tories were seen to be tired and out of touch, with at least one MP crossing the floor before the election (David Cameron's predecessor.)
The key this time will get the moderate Tories on board.

From LH's link, the three monkeys theory confirmed. Not sure whether to laugh or cry....

"The cabinet divisions are partly his design. When he was still employed by May, the Tory peer advised she appoint Brexiteers to the three cabinet posts in charge of severing ties with Europe. The result is Boris Johnson, David Davis, and Liam Fox leading the high offices of Brexit.

Heseltine says the trio are "the right people to prove the job can't be done." He explains: "It was the only political answer I could see — to let the Brexiteers prove that their policies work. Patently they don't. There are no policies.

"They are just floundering along and I'm afraid, they must be allowed to continue to do that until the public opinion gets the message. It's an impossible task, there is no upside to this negotiation. There are no good news stories to come out of this."