Westminstenders: Stuck in the Middle With TIGGERS

[RedToothBrush]

Well I don't know how we got here tonight.
We've got the feeling that something ain't right.
We're so scared as we leave the EU
And we're wondering how we'll get out of this stew

Antisemites to the left of me!
Dog Whistles to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.

'Cause I'm stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.
And I'm wondering what it is we should do.
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face.
Losing control and running all over the place.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle whilst we leave the EU.

When you started off with rights
And you're starting to wonder if thats for life.
And all the politicians come crawling
Slap you on the back and say
Please . . .
Please . . .
Vote Leave and back EU Withdrawal

But we see it makes no sense at all.

Best to keep your money offshore
Than to visit the bookstore

Deniers to the left of me!
Islamaphobes to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Its finally happened. FINALLY.

MPs have seen that their leaders have lost the plot and are hell bent on destruction and politicial ideology ahead of practicality and will justify the unjustifable in the face of democracy and they have jumped ship.

Enter stage left and stage right: The TIGGERS - members of The Independent Group.

Will there be more. Hard to say no. It seems almost certain there will be more.

Will it make a difference? Difficult to call, but these MPs would be driven out sooner or later. Such is our accelerating politicial polarisation and narrowing of views. This is their last stand. They have nothing left to lose on a personal level.

Whether you agree with the TIGGERS or still look to the other parties for policy, I do think that the emergence of the TIGGERS marks a feeling of optimism and much needed hope for many many Remainers / Moderates, even if it ultimately does fizzle out.

A reflection from 2017: People voted for Corbyn because they were looking for Hope. When he's failed to deliver that, its led to disillusionment and he can not pull the same trick again at a future GE. This makes that doubly so. People are STILL very much looking for that hope. If Brexit does go tits up in a big fashion, then what happens? To what direction do people look? I'm sure there will be the bitterest of recriminations, but... hope is a big deal. We need something...

Tick tick tick. 37 days til Brexit.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3492426-Westministenders-Abbreviation

I and everyone I know is better than George Galloway and he shares his shit takes all day long.

😆👍🏼

I think there is a case for starting with a job description of what a government is ... because currently we don't have one, and it's allowed the scope creep we've seen where you aren't allowed to disagree without having to look over your shoulder.

This is such a fun question. I think I might be getting a bit carried away.

Is a government there to look after the people or to enable the people to look after themselves. Meaning do they decided what we should do for us or simply enact what we want them to do?

So when you get down to it I think a pyramid structure is far to static and hierarchical. We need to be looking at government as something more fluid and complex in order to really look after the life, liberty and happiness of all citizens.

No argument here.

I really cannot recommend "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke highly enough as a (surprisingly ?) well observed (and side splittingly funny in places) on the nature of government - through the prism of the US system. He raises some really key points which can be directly related to the UK. The fact it hardly shows it's nearly 30 years old means it's remarkably focussed.

In one of the takeaway passages, he's watching news coverage of a demonstration over teenage pregnancies (if memory serves) and wonders what fault it is of the government - seeing as the protesters wanted the government to do something about it.

It's a common enough overheard complaint ... They should do something about it. Why isn't it we could do something about it ?

Is a government there to look after the people or to enable the people to look after themselves.

I suspect a lot of USians would feel the latter is more familiar than the former. Ultimately, isn't that conservatism ? Which would be great, if we were allowed to have it neat. But we don't. We have the bastardised version where robber barons look after themselves and we are stripped of our agency and made dependant on a system designed to subjugate us.

Given the propensity of people to disagree, fall out and fight, the first duty of government is probably to keep the peace. The best way to do this is probably to try to make sure that everyone is housed, fed, educated, kept as healthy as possible, in gainful employment and with some degree of control over their lives. And that outsiders cannot come along and disturb the peace.

Fleetstreetfox raises an important point in this thread in terms of what government is supposed to do, with particular reference to the role of individual MPs:

Fleetstreetfox @ Fleetstreetfox
A thread on something I can’t believe no-one is mentioning about @TheIndGroup 1/...

It’s obviously hypocritical for MPs who demanded a 2nd ref when circumstances change not to call a by-election in their own constituencies when they resigned the whip... but 2/

It’s just as hypocritical for MPs who said we DIDN’T need to vote again when circumstances changed to now demand a by-election because circumstances have changed. Although... 3/

No-one seems to have noticed the sub-text: - demands for 8 pro-EU MPs to be removed from Parliament just weeks before what will be very tight Brexit votes ... 4/

And those doing the demanding are generally, from what I have seen, the anti-EU headbangers... 5/

... who demand we respect the will of the people, while stacking making a disastrous Brexit more likely, and stripping almost 500,000 voters of representation 6/

All MPs are supposed to represent all their constituents. It doesn’t matter if you voted Labour and have a Labour MP, they represent the Tories and children and abstainers as well. An independent MP is arguably more likely to do so 7/

In short: what CAN these fuckers be up to? 🤔 /ends

The relevant point that a constituency MP is supposed to serve the interests of ALL their constituents and this is very much lost in current politics.

The whip removes the ability to do that.

Also in terms of political participation, localism has growing support. Its where all this 'Westminster bubble' type stuff is ingrained.

It's also why the LDs do better at local level because their grassroots localism is recognised and well respected in a disproportionate way. Indeed people are still voting LD at local level even if they are leavers.

The party whip removes the ability for many to debate because party politics is more important than serving the interests of constituents.

In recent years the HoC has given more time for backbenchers to table bills without the support of government or party. These bills have been particularly successful and have managed to get cross party support on important issues to the public.

The debates these have produced have often been of high quality as they havent been constricted by party politics in quite the same way.

The opportunity to work across the aisle has been healthy.

If party politics is restricting debate BOTH in parliament AND internally thus is deeply toxic. It puts too much power in too few hands and removes accountability and scrutiny. It removes willingness to compromise and to try to understand alternative points of view and the valid concerns of less popular groups.

Why do we value constituency MPs? It's supposed to be one of the good things of our current system. Whether it works is another matter, and whether we should seek to retain this as part of reform and how we might strengthen this are important questions which stem from the idea of exploring what the purpose of government is.

The relevant point that a constituency MP is supposed to serve the interests of ALL their constituents and this is very much lost in current politics.

You have more protection buying a penny chew than electing an MP. On that basis, it's hard to fault the persistent 30% non-voters. Why put a single joule of energy into something you can't return, refund, or throw away ?

Incidentally, I was impressed - briefly - by the use of primary elections to help select candidates for the parties ... whatever happened to ????

I had a look at Sarah Wollaston’s website and I think she was one of those selected by the use of a primary.

Heidi Allen was elected by primary too.

We need to consider ....
Could May and Lewis have been trying to persuade Grayling to defect too ? 😂

Ultimately, unless we are serious about putting heads on spikes, any changes will have to be incremental.

A primary-style system for selecting candidates might be a good first step. It allows for localism within the familiar comfort blanket of the party system. If we'd had that, there might have been less of a rollover by the Remain MPs (well, if we'd had that, we'd have a different set of MPs anyway). It would also prevent candidates being parachuted in.

Jessica elgot@jessicaelgot
Responding to some of the reports, Ian Austin says he had not resigned from Labour and he is not leaving the party today - he has previously said he plans to take some time to think about it.

Been some talk about this today.

Austin has defied the Labour whip to vote WITH the government FOR Brexit.

It's been pointed out this makes his position and whether he would align with the TIGGERS interesting. Whilst the ex Labour TIGGERS can cite various different reasons for jumping ship the ex Tory TIGGERS have specifically cited Europe as their reason for going (although its definitely not as clear as that as Allen's position on austerity testifies).

IF he does go, and join the TIGGERS then that does suggest they will definitely persue a much more loose arrangement over what they stand for.

Strategically this is important and could make a difference to the futures of them all.

Water risk

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexiteer-mocked-twitter-drinking-water-purification-europe-chemicals/

The post came after a report in the Mail on Sunday that claimed
Environment Secretary Michael Gove had decided to back Theresa May’s Brexit deal over fears Britain would run out of clean drinking water.

In order to make water safe to drink, suppliers add chemicals, including fluorosilicic acid, aluminium sulphate, calcium hydroxide and sodium silicofluoride. The chemicals are imported from EU countries.

A Whitehall report leaked to the newspaper said these vital chemicals rely on the ‘just in time’ economy and cannot be stockpiled as they are too volatile.

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nodeal-brexit-could-lead-to-clean-drinking-water-shortage-a3999491.html

Many months ago, on these threads one of the more tiresome (and now never seen) Leavers was pissing themselves over discussion about water problems in the event of a no deal.

My feel at the time was simply a supply problem of any mechanical components needed in the system could lead to issues. I never thought about chemicals.

Generally, it's lack of clean water that's the first trigger for disease in disaster areas ...

DFs house in Italy is only served by water 2 hours a day - we are very spoiled in some ways in the UK.

Maybe we'll hear more about "bowsers" - and not as a rhyme for "wowsers"

For those who've built up a large supply of food, I wouldn't prep for more than 3 days without water

• the govt will have sorted out water supplies by then ... unless they want drastic population reduction.

I have a question which may be a stupid one (though I'm not sure if it's stupid because of course they do! or because of course they don't!) and may garner eye rolls - but I'm going to ask anyway.

It's based on the trade debate twitter thread posted a few pages back. That was a lot to understand and seemed complicated and many (most) mps don't come from a background in trade so I'm wondering:

before they hold a debate on something big and important and necessary for the country to function (like trade but could be anything) do they bring in experts - not political ones, but people actually working in that field who know their shit, to come in and explain it all to them. If it's not the mp's area of expertise then they are in fact laymen making big decisions - do they get to hear from impartial experts first? And ask questions?

I know there are civil servants behind the scenes who are technically apolitical and stay in departments for a long time and so presumably have a handle on situations - and they advise the govt.

But the vast majority of mps aren't actually in the govt. Do they all get an opportunity to all be given the same information (and not redacted by the govt dept to show what they want), seek clarity and speak to people who actually know what they're talking about?

(and I wouldn't even be thinking about this, except we need to keep in mind that we are relying on Grayling for transport of everything < gulp > including these vital chemicals with their short life)

For those who've built up a large supply of food, I wouldn't prep for more than 3 days without water - the govt will have sorted out water supplies by then ... unless they want drastic population reduction.

Assuming a catastrophic failure in a plant somewhere, how long would it be before water is safe ? Bearing in mind for formula milk no delay is acceptable, really. And the ability to boil water might be affected by energy supplies ...

BCF after a couple of water outages locally in the past two years, I now keep several large bottles of water in the house for that reason alone. Never mind Brexit. I have bought some water purification tabs and have squirrelled them from DHs sight (as he would think this going too far), and intend to make sure there are empty plastic bottles available in the house next month (it's a little difficult atm due to people viewing the house and lack of space for anything else). It's on my radar but one I intend to sort at the latest opportunity. As you say, lack of water for more than a few days would be catastrophic in an unparalleled way.

I also plan to make sure EVERYTHING is washed for 29th March as if we have a shortage of water, this means water for cleaning is going to also be very limited.

pretzels Shadow ministers have the opportunity to be briefed by civil servants

However, ordinary MPs can only call in experts via HoC Select Committees, or of course ask questions when it is the relevant minister's day to answer questions in the HoC

They have access to HoC briefings papers, specially prepared for MPs, but these are not usually confidential - we have referenced some of these on Westministenders - so they don't reveal govt thinking.
They are useful background, but I suspect many Brexiter MPs refuse to read what experts say - nothing else could explain the abysmal ignorance of so many

Unforunately, most civil servants aren't well versed on trade themselves
and the expert consultants brought in are often ignored - even / especially by Cabinet ministers - if their facts don't fit with Brexit ideology

e.g. Raab should have realised a lot earlier the importance of Dover-Calais for our food supply !

Ivan Rogers - probably our most knowledgeable expert - was forced out for speaking truth to power

Pretzels The government does rely on its own paid experts in the civil service. MPs also have access to experts that it can call to give evidence at select committees. Unfortunately often ministers and MPs are so ignorant that they have difficulty understanding the depth of their ignorance leading them to overestimate their level of competence and to ignore or misinterpret expert advice. There is also a significant issue with "think tanks" who are often not politically neutral and have undisclosed sources of finance being asked for advice which can be, if not dodgy, then at odds with general expert opinion.

Select committees sometimes invite very highly qualified experts to testify and you can often watch the proceedings. Just after the referendum vote I watched a NI committee session in which two trade experts were invited to give evidence. It was very edifying but quite scary - although some of the MPs asked excellent questions (especially Lady Hermon the independent NI MP) others were scarily ignorant and unprepared to engage with expertise.

I guess it helps to live near a reservoir ...

P.J. O'Rourke in another book whose title I forget did a wonderful 'character assassination' of much of Europe.

(I guess it helps to live near a reservoir ...}
But you need to get the dead dogs and sheep pee out of it.