BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

bompington

I'm slightly intrigued (and no, I'm not going to pollute that thread with this) at the flak the LDs are getting from Brexiteers.
The Libs' position ("secondrefophobics won't let us have one so we'll turn the next GE into one - vote for us if you want Remain") is clear and easy.

Now I can understand why idiot pro-Brexit trolls on forums might be too stupid to see how stupid it is (Dunning-Kruger again) to criticise someone as undemocratic for offering a clear voting choice with clear outcomes.

But all the Leaver columnists are lining up to have a go, and at least some of them must be smart enough to realise full well that they're acting in bad faith.

What is it about the Lib Dems' stance that worries them so? Surely they don't think they can win, do they?

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

Well, if 48% of the electorate (sound familiar?) voted Lib Dem then they’d have a sizeable majority, and a mandate.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

I'm slightly intrigued (and no, I'm not going to pollute that thread with this) at the flak the LDs are getting from Brexiteers.
The Libs' position ("secondrefophobics won't let us have one so we'll turn the next GE into one - vote for us if you want Remain") is clear and easy.

Now I can understand why idiot pro-Brexit trolls on forums might be too stupid to see how stupid it is (Dunning-Kruger again) to criticise someone as undemocratic for offering a clear voting choice with clear outcomes.

But all the Leaver columnists are lining up to have a go, and at least some of them must be smart enough to realise full well that they're acting in bad faith.

What is it about the Lib Dems' stance that worries them so? Surely they don't think they can win, do they?

You're assuming it's a rational considered response to the policy rather than just fodder for their tribe.

Longshot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

If "The People" agree with you then the Lib Dems won't get anywhere near a majority so the point becomes moot.

If they do get a majority then I think democracy has proven that the referendum reflects a historical perspective rather than a current one.

If you believe that the outcome of a public vote lasts for all time then, by extrapolation, whoever wins the next GE should be in forever.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

Nobody needs to respect anything. The bottom line is that the public get to elect parliament roughly every 5 years and in between parliament can broadly speaking do what they like. If they find a law inconvenient they can change it. The only check on that is the next election. After the referendum we had an election and we chose to elect a parliament with a mixture of views on enacting Brexit. There's not a majority for the course you want to take nor for the course I think we should take, and we both need to suck it up and hope that things go more in our favour at the next election.

coopster_the_1st

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

Just pointing out the extremist views of the party.

I'm not the one who is worried, the Fib Dems are ones running scared of having an election because they know their view is in the minority with the electorate.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

Just pointing out the extremist views of the party.

I'm not the one who is worried, the Fib Dems are ones running scared of having an election because they know their view is in the minority with the electorate.

If I remember correctly, they and the SNP were a bit more gung-ho and it was Labour who argued for a longer delay, but regardless, there's no imperative to have an election until 2022. Johnson is only trying to call one because he blew his majority and can't get anything done.

haydenm

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

Well, if 48% of the electorate (sound familiar?) voted Lib Dem then they’d have a sizeable majority, and a mandate.

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.

You sound a bit worried.

Just pointing out the extremist views of the party.

I'm not the one who is worried, the Fib Dems are ones running scared of having an election because they know their view is in the minority with the electorate.

Yes, their view was a minority view in the last referendums, just. As has been pointed out in previous posts, that doesn't mean anything because this is a general election not a referendum, keep up.

Troll or moron?

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

I'm slightly intrigued (and no, I'm not going to pollute that thread with this) at the flak the LDs are getting from Brexiteers.
The Libs' position ("secondrefophobics won't let us have one so we'll turn the next GE into one - vote for us if you want Remain") is clear and easy.

Now I can understand why idiot pro-Brexit trolls on forums might be too stupid to see how stupid it is (Dunning-Kruger again) to criticise someone as undemocratic for offering a clear voting choice with clear outcomes.

But all the Leaver columnists are lining up to have a go, and at least some of them must be smart enough to realise full well that they're acting in bad faith.

What is it about the Lib Dems' stance that worries them so? Surely they don't think they can win, do they?

Brexiter hypocracy is a given.

LD's "revoke" position is essentially taking the cummings strategy which is they need to energise their base to vote for them and not labour (as opposed to the tories, who need their base to vote for them and not the brexit party).

It's not the greatest objective position to take; it's an electoral position.

kingstongraham

KingstonGraham wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.

It's a good point, if that is what the Conservatives campaign on as a preferred policy which I think is very doubtful.

It's another one of those Lib Dem policies based on them being in the real world position of not going to win a majority and showing a preferred direction of travel. (Their mistake before was to individually say that they would never vote for a policy that they then decided to.)

It's also worth saying that the Conservatives would take this message from an election win regardless of what the Lib Dems say, or what their stated policy is. Which is weird because half their message seems to be "Don't vote for the scary beardy weirdy".

antonyfromoz

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

I'm slightly intrigued (and no, I'm not going to pollute that thread with this) at the flak the LDs are getting from Brexiteers.
The Libs' position ("secondrefophobics won't let us have one so we'll turn the next GE into one - vote for us if you want Remain") is clear and easy.

Now I can understand why idiot pro-Brexit trolls on forums might be too stupid to see how stupid it is (Dunning-Kruger again) to criticise someone as undemocratic for offering a clear voting choice with clear outcomes.

But all the Leaver columnists are lining up to have a go, and at least some of them must be smart enough to realise full well that they're acting in bad faith.

What is it about the Lib Dems' stance that worries them so? Surely they don't think they can win, do they?

Brexiter hypocracy is a given.

LD's "revoke" position is essentially taking the cummings strategy which is they need to energise their base to vote for them and not labour (as opposed to the tories, who need their base to vote for them and not the brexit party).

It's not the greatest objective position to take; it's an electoral position.

It's strange to look at the messaging from before the referendum to now - there were remain supporters such as David Cameron stating that this was a once in a generation choice and indicating that a leave vote would mean cutting ties with the EU and leavers such as Jacob Rees Moggs and Nigel Farage saying that more than one referendum might be needed if the vote was close (and the percentages of 48:52 were given as an example of what was meant by that) and/or might be preferable once the details of the negotiation were finalised. Now the situations are pretty much reversed in many respects.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

It's also worth saying that the Conservatives would take this message from an election win regardless of what the Lib Dems say, or what their stated policy is. Which is weird because half their message seems to be "Don't vote for the scary beardy weirdy".

That is the only legit defensive position they can take, as they cannot defend their own record for the past 3 years. Look at Stevo's arguing re Tories and it all boils down to "it's not Corbyn". Has done for the past 3 years.

What have they actually achieved since the last GE?

cycleclinic

The tories have achieved loads. they negociated a deal then rejected it 3 times. They lost a majoirty, ditched a PM and the new one lost so many MP's that they cant govern now. I think BJ and JC are secretly trying there best to give JS a boost#,

the lastest You Gov poll is just one poll but is not good news for the tories or labour. With 23% of the vote share and the tories 32% the lid dems might nick enough seats to deny the tories a majoirty if the bexit party as expected take tory votes. Labour in third place would be hammered. I mean what labour have said is we have no opinion on brexit so you can decide by voting for another party.

Its also notable the JC is getting alot less coverage at the moment along with the labour party and the LD's are getting more. Every labour person I get on is sounding really muddled now. The lid Dems are having trouble explaining there new policy of revoke without sounding a bit muddled. Its clear but it has not come across too well but well enough. I suspect a referendum is off the table now. Perhaps no deal still, the WA or the out side runner is revoke. Oh thats the options we have always had. Thats progress folks.

rjsterry

Here's that voting intentions graph.



Worth comparing with the same chart for the 2017 GE.

bompington

What's most noticeable is how obvious the symmetry between Tory and BP is.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

What's most noticeable is how obvious the symmetry between Tory and BP is.

Same for LD Lab TBH.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

What's most noticeable is how obvious the symmetry between Tory and BP is.

Same for LD Lab TBH.

True. It's the Ulsterisation of UK politics - two tribes where vote share for the sub-tribes depends on who appears to be bashing the enemy most effectively.

Depressing.

Longshot

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that voting intentions graph.



Worth comparing with the same chart for the 2017 GE.

That gives me an idea...

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

What's most noticeable is how obvious the symmetry between Tory and BP is.

Same for LD Lab TBH.

True. It's the Ulsterisation of UK politics - two tribes where vote share for the sub-tribes depends on who appears to be bashing the enemy most effectively.

Depressing.

US tends to be ahead of the curve re FPTP and I think Cummings et al figured that out sooner than others in that world.

In polarised politics it's all about motivating your base, not persuading, and goes a long way to explain the current strategies of Tories and LDs.

rjsterry

rjsterry wrote:

Here's that voting intentions graph.



Worth comparing with the same chart for the 2017 GE.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

tailwindhome

Coopster the 1st wrote:

A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum.

How would they do that then?

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

What's most noticeable is how obvious the symmetry between Tory and BP is.

Same for LD Lab TBH.

True. It's the Ulsterisation of UK politics - two tribes where vote share for the sub-tribes depends on who appears to be bashing the enemy most effectively.

Depressing.

US tends to be ahead of the curve re FPTP and I think Cummings et al figured that out sooner than others in that world.

In polarised politics it's all about motivating your base, not persuading, and goes a long way to explain the current strategies of Tories and LDs.

So I'm still not sure the US works well as a parallel. It's a full on two party system, and Trump lucked out in facing an opponent almost as divisive as he is.

Motivating a small base would only seem to work if your opposition does the same, otherwise you're leaving a group of floating voters completely to the other side.

tailwindhome

Adam Payne
@adampayne26
HMG forgot to sack Ed Vaizey as a trade envoy when it removed the Conservative whip from him and he is set to represent the UK abroad next week

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord wrote:

Ah yes, I do remember Nato forces swinging into action during the Falklands war....

Technically The Falklands episode wasn't a war, it was a conflict. That said, it wasn't as if we needed any NATO help to kick their ar$es.

Alejandrosdog

Stevo 666 wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

Ah yes, I do remember Nato forces swinging into action during the Falklands war....

Technically The Falklands episode wasn't a war, it was a conflict. That said, it wasn't as if we needed any NATO help to kick their ar$es.

errrr hmmm I understand the sentiment and our troops were significantly better trained and we kicked ass but your ability to do that depended on a supply chain which was significantly damaged by the lost of the Atlantic Conveyor. 3 commando brigade, of which I was a member, was particularly impacted by this and we lost significant ordinance, helicopters and fuel supplies.

The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by two Exocet missiles supplied by our NATO partners France. France superficially supported the uk in stopping Argentina getting anymore Exocets but also had a government owned company in Argentina for the duration of the war and identified which launchers were operational and also fault identification, the Argies did the rest.

Despite 3 commando Brigade being the worlds best troops, we could have been undone by French support for Latin America. The French are the most ungrateful miserable race on earth and our partners in NATO.

drhaggis

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The French are the most ungrateful miserable race on earth and our partners in NATO.

Piti (Alejandro's dog) voted leave.

Alejandrosdog

DrHaggis wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The French are the most ungrateful miserable race on earth and our partners in NATO.

Piti (Alejandro's dog) voted leave.

Yes I did. Get over it.

hopkinb

Burgundy, cognac, epoisses, cassoulet, boeuf en daube, jurançon, roquefort, bouillabaisse, champagne, comte, tomme de savoie, tartiflette, lapin a la moutarde, jambon beurre, sauternes, calvados, moules frites, jambon persillade, rillettes, tartare, quenelles de brochet, croissants. Jeebus, I could go on. What have you got doggo? Pedigree chum?

hopkinb

Or your probably fictional military career.