Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: On An Election Footing

966 replies

RedToothBrush · 25/07/2019 16:22

Boris Johnson has set out his strategy.

He is challenging remain Tories to put their money where their mouth is, or to shut up.

His majority, soon to be just 1, is fragile but he intends to tough it out.

His Cabinet, is to all intents and purposes an ERG take over of the Tory Party, not unlike the Momentum take over of the Labour Party. And Johnson is looking to purge the party of its liberal wing, whilst pretending that he is liberal to make it acceptable to long term loyal Tories who might still waiver and merely vote for the rosette or like the veneer of respectability.

It has been made clear to Tory MPs that they will have to sign up to a No Deal Strategy should a snap election be called - or face the prospect of deselection. Disloyality will not be tolerated as Hunt's Cabinet backers all found out when they were sacked rather than be allowed to resign as Grayling was.

Instead Johnson reaped his revenge bringing back quitters and disgraced MPs as a deliberate 'fuck you' to moderates and remainers.

His message is clear and made all the clearer by the appointment of Dominic Cummings.

Today the Treasurery opened the piggie bank and told all departments to prepare for no deal. That is what is going to happen.

Parliament can not stop no deal. Johnson will drive it through regardless, even if its technically illegal. The default of no deal makes it an impossible juggernaught to stop without triggering a GE before the 31st October.

Technically speaking there are just 3 parliamentary days left this can be done.

And a GE is no guarentee of stopping no deal anyway. Cummings coming on board spells it out. Its a campaign strategy to reinvigourate the Leave Campaign and make all the promises that were made before. Of course there is no way of implimenting any of these before 31st October, so they just sound nice and people will believe them because they want to believe them. They want to trust and have hope for the future.

Yet with no trade deals and third party status, and crippling gridlock at ports and extra red tape for exporters and importers to deal with, it is inevitable that the economy will take a big hit. And Johnson's promises are expensive. His £39 billion he wants to withhold, is peanuts in the scheme of things and given what he is proposing.

The plan might sound nice, but it doesn't actually add up.

If we want a deal we will STILL have to sign up to conditions that Brussels sets out EVEN IF we no deal.

Meanwhile the US is ready and waiting to fleece us, because we aren't prepared to admit this and are too proud to see that this is a better option than have corporate American feast on the bones of the British economy.

Human Rights and Workers Rights are very much in the cross hairs with this. Health and Safety standards that have been set by London and then imposed on the EU will be burnt.

All the while the EU will be blamed for our own folly.

The worst thing is, people will actually buy it too.

Things are going to get a hell of a lot worse in this country, not because we lack optimism and hope, but because our egos are too big and we have been too idealist rather than recognising very real obstacles and finding ways to overcome than rather than just trying to ignore them. We will find out all those Paragraph Cs in good time the hard way because of the lack of attention to detail.

PFI and outsourcing will look like minor hiccups when the shit hits the fan.

I do hope that the puritians of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and the Remain Referendum Campaign are happy. This is also their mess. They have spent 3 years naval gazing and still don't understand nor know how to respond. This is where a General Election becomes a very real danger because they are clueless as to how to combat a reunited Leave campaign.

Be careful what you wish for going forward.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
LouiseCollins28 · 27/07/2019 17:48

Prettybird, that’s because it isn’t a lie, it just isn’t and you are simply wrong. You might desperately want the following not to be true, but it is.

Number of votes cast for the winning Conservatives in 1992 = 14,093,007 which is a record for a GE.

Number of votes cast for Leave in 2016 = 17,410,742

More people voted in 2016 to leave the EU than have voted to elected any UK government, ever.

prettybird · 27/07/2019 17:48

47% of households in Glasgow don't have a car at all Shock, let alone access to one car. Admittedly, we do have a reasonable public transport system, with a decent suburban railway system and bus service, albeit with maybe 2 exceptions a radial system, and our wee diddy clockwork orange subway (which doesn't go out to the outskirts).

We're able to cope with a single car - but we're also cyclists and when ds was young we had 2 cars.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/07/2019 17:48

"a Con / LibDem outcome like 2010 which would block Brexit and return Osbornomics"

Osbornomics / austerity was in the Tory manifesto

Austerity was pushed so hard by the rightwing press that they convinced the voters, so the other parties had to fall in line to some extent

I doubt if the LDems were particularly keen on austerity, but they chose - very unwisely - to be the junior partner in a coalition
So they had to suck up a lot of Tory policies and get the blame for them

This is why, btw, that I doubt Farage would ever enter a formal coalition with the Tories
He will have seen how successfully they wrecked the junior partner's vote for several years

I doubt the LDems would ever again get into bed with any larger party, let alone the Tories.
They and the SNP would be wise to at most offer confidence & supply, so they could refuse to support any policies they disagree with

A hung Parliament looks the most likely GE outcome, but let's see when we actually have a GE called

I'd hope that a hung Parliament would result in a Labour govt, with c&s from LDems+SNP

  • and would resolve Brexit via a PV
If voters then choose a specific Leave option, that that is what should automatically happen
NoWordForFluffy · 27/07/2019 17:55

But that isn't what's being claimed, @LouiseCollins28. You're just trying to find figures which fit what you want to have been said.

It wasn't the biggest vote ever. It just wasn't, even if you want it to have been (to throw your sentiment back at you).

LouiseCollins28 · 27/07/2019 17:58

How exactly is the most people voting for something, not the biggest vote ever in favour of something?

BigChocFrenzy · 27/07/2019 17:59

Some people don't have cars not because of a lifestyle choice, or - like me - because of a visual or other disability

That's fine for those of us who can actually afford public transport - and taxis to connect them up if need be

I find the German public transport system excellent:
reliable & cheap, with good quality stock - tube & trains with air con thank God !

The Uk also needs to upgrade its bike infrastructure, to make cycling a safe & cheap alternative to cars
Bike lanes are ubiquitous here and in the Netherlands, so cycling is a normal part of transport, not just for MAMILs

MockerstheFeManist · 27/07/2019 17:59

Clegg signed a pact with the Devil in return for a handful of magic beans, specifically a promise to hold a referendum on PR electoral reform. It's barely remembered now, but it was every bit as much of a lying travesty as the Brexit vote.

(and on this day, Jared the Cleggslayer has stood down and we shall in all liklihood get a Lib in his place.)

NoWordForFluffy · 27/07/2019 17:59

It's TOTAL votes cast (either number or percentage of electorate). Not total for one of the choices.

MockerstheFeManist · 27/07/2019 18:05

Previous biggest vote was nearly 14m for Labour in the 1951 general election. (And they lost.)

This remains the largest share of the total electorate ever acheived in any UK election.

prettybird · 27/07/2019 18:06

Sorry LouiseCollins28 but I have to disagree fundamentally with you: the wording consistently used is the "biggest democratic exercise ever" and it wasn't Confused - in neither absolute terms nor percentage terms Hmm

Our truce didn't last long Wink

If you're going to start using the "but so many people voted for x" argument because it was a binary choice, I could then start using the "but more people voted against eg Major" than ever before Confused

placemats · 27/07/2019 18:07

Ignorant is a Latin word meaning 'not knowing'

It has nothing to do with intelligence.

BigChocFrenzy · 27/07/2019 18:09

The vote was more than 3 years ago and was for any undefined form of Leave

May ruled out EFTA / Soft Leave in January 2017, then called a GE a few months later .... after which she lost her majority

Hence we can't say that voters wanted a hard Leave, or indeed any specific form of Leave that is actually possible, as distinct from the cake fantasy that was promised

That is what would justify a PV: checking if voters approve a defined Leave option that is available.

MockerstheFeManist · 27/07/2019 18:12

And we have the Miller Case, when the Supreme Court ruled:

  • The referemndum was advisory.
  • Parliament was obliged to carry out the wishes of the majority and leave/not remain a member of the EU.
  • All post-Brexit arragements in the way of trande and other treaties were a matter for parliament.
placemats · 27/07/2019 18:13

What really pisses me off about O'Mara is that he, presumably, went through an interview process and won above others my betting is a lot of them were local, dedicated councillors only to resign as it's now obvious he was totally unsuitable for the position. My vote is he was a Momentum shoe in. I've witnessed it, seen it.

The Tory party are no different by the way, nor are the Lib Dem's

Democracy is who you know, mate.

Iambuffy · 27/07/2019 18:17

After I rebuffed them the local labour party went with a man who doesnt even live in the town (let alone ward!) who is very odd indeed....
Talks at you. Very intense. I don't like him - and neither did anyone else...he didn't get in!.

Iambuffy · 27/07/2019 18:18

True placemats
I was approached more than once.
I had to tell them to fuck off in the end...

prettybird · 27/07/2019 18:28

[The Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case that] Parliament was obliged to carry out the wishes of the majority and leave/not remain a member of the EU.

Confused It ruled that Parliament had formally had to legislate before the Government could invoke Article 50 and made no judgement on which way it should vote Hmm

NoWordForFluffy · 27/07/2019 18:31

There's a fair amount of bizarre interpretation of fact going on this evening. It's definitely silly season.

LonelyTiredandLow · 27/07/2019 18:36

Am I the only one wondering about the apparent will for displacement of power from WM over the North? What do they suddenly not get in ring fenced funds? I doubt there won't be a catch (or some form of data that won't have to be included in WM policy making decisions perhaps?).

DGRossetti · 27/07/2019 18:38

Invaders, not immigrants, who employed and handsomely paid the locals, slavery didn't work too well in England and by then most were considered Roman citizens and the locals were very happy to adopt the new Roman ways. There was a comprehensive infrastructure put in place to ensure local, national and international prosperity, and this carries on to this day. The Romans understood the importance of a local infrastructure, though many 'generals' who were sent there didn't like the area because they didn't fit in, unlike in the south of England and the Med.

I must say, I'm learning a lot here. Depending on what "learning" means Hmm

My learning was the early Romans had to import a lot of labour, because the locals hadn't got a clue about stoneworking. Certainly not to Roman standards.

Very few Britons became - or were allowed to become - Roman citizens.

And Britain became a very handy place to ensure most of the army was well out of reach of Rome and therefore much harder to "Do a Caesar" as Suetonius described it (or was it Tacitus ?)

Although I will concede the classical view that Roman Britain was somehow a Skegness of Empire has started to be revealed as a lie, archaeologically.

Of course there is "slavery", slavery and slavery. With the Roman successors of Anglo-Saxons being perfectly at home with slave owning too (as were the displaced Celts, I believe ?)

placemats · 27/07/2019 18:45

Re the Act of Parliament that the Miller case enforced.

Jeremy Corbyn:

"I am asking all our MPs not to block Article 50 and make sure it goes through next week".

news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-tells-his-labour-mps-they-must-trigger-brexit-10743495

But Article 50 can be revoked.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47668466

curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf

Heading in this long document:

The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to
withdraw from the EU

MockerstheFeManist · 27/07/2019 18:48

And because it is Parliament that triggered A50, it is Parliament and not HMG who gets to revoke it.

NoWordForFluffy · 27/07/2019 18:51

Wrong. The PM alone can revoke if they fancy. It doesn't have to go to parliament to decide.

placemats · 27/07/2019 18:52

My learning was the early Romans had to import a lot of labour, because the locals hadn't got a clue about stoneworking. Certainly not to Roman standards.

Your 'learning' is wrong. The Roman's did not 'import' labour, however, many of the Legions posted had excellent skills and were happy to travel to foreign lands. They imparted their skills to the locals and learnt a lot from them too especially when it came to local dialect. None of these people would have understood a word as to what the other was saying, let's not forget. The Romans understood give and take. They were certainly not stupid immigrants.

placemats · 27/07/2019 18:54

@NoWordForFluffy I'll just take your word for it against the Court of Justice of the European Union Shall I?

Swipe left for the next trending thread