BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.

Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?

Stunt to take away from the bigger issue that BoJo is ducking interviews 'cos he's as sh!t as Corbyn at them.

At least his handlers have the sense to keep him away from them

I've only seen clips of Gove being a knob and no clips of the actual debate, so who got the most out of that debate?

I suspect if you are the type of voter Cummings et al are going after, you probably don't give a sh!t about channel 4 or the environment, but you do give a sh!t that your perspective doesn't get heard on telly anywhere near often enough.

rjsterry

From the clips I've seen it was them all agreeing how important the issue was and that major changes were needed, followed by one-upmanship on how many trees they'd planted. Forensic it was not. Oh, and the absurd claim that Gove was a leader, just not the party leader.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.

Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?

He could have sent Theresa Villiers if he wanted to make a point, but he sent a man who is not environment secretary any more.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.

Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?

Stunt to take away from the bigger issue that BoJo is ducking interviews 'cos he's as sh!t as Corbyn at them.

At least his handlers have the sense to keep him away from them

I've only seen clips of Gove being a knob and no clips of the actual debate, so who got the most out of that debate?

I suspect if you are the type of voter Cummings et al are going after, you probably don't give a sh!t about channel 4 or the environment, but you do give a sh!t that your perspective doesn't get heard on telly anywhere near often enough.

Didn’t watch it.

It is Boris’s election to lose, why put yourself in a position to do so? It is good tactics.

rick_chasey

I don't think anyone disagrees with why they did it, but more the idea that, as PM, you should be able to handle some questioning.

I think that believing the future PM should be put under scrutiny in front of the electorate is a legitimate and sensible position to take.

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

I don't think anyone disagrees with why they did it, but more the idea that, as PM, you should be able to handle some questioning.

I think that believing the future PM should be put under scrutiny in front of the electorate is a legitimate and sensible position to take.

What? Splutter! Piffle! When one is of the learned, privileged classes, one does not need to debase oneself to being questioned by the peasants.

rick_chasey

You'd think the former editor of the spectator wouldn't be scared of being interviewed by the chair of the spectator.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.

Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?

He could have sent Theresa Villiers if he wanted to make a point, but he sent a man who is not environment secretary any more.

It would have been more sensible if the debate was between environmental representatives for each party.

Still, I'm pleased to hear all this tree planting chat. One step ahead of Extinction Rebellion.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I don't think anyone disagrees with why they did it, but more the idea that, as PM, you should be able to handle some questioning.

I think that believing the future PM should be put under scrutiny in front of the electorate is a legitimate and sensible position to take.

All fair points but if you were a Tory strategist you would keep your clown away from that format. I imagine it lead to huge arguments as I bet the idiot thinks he excels in exactly those situations.

rick_chasey

Yeah. You think with all the regulation around elections and actually having a state run broadcaster, you would be able to put some rules in about the minimum amount of scrutiny on TV and radio the parties leaders should be exposed to.

Longshot

I don't wear a tin foil hat (I checked in the mirror) nor am I a conspiracy theory fan but the BBC-bias-towards-Boris stuff looks quite compelling. It's not totally Pravda style but more subtle.

On the other hand, I tend to believe that if you look for something hard enough, you'll find some supporting evidence.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Yeah. You think with all the regulation around elections and actually having a state run broadcaster, you would be able to put some rules in about the minimum amount of scrutiny on TV and radio the parties leaders should be exposed to.

How would you judge which parties are to be included, and who would make that decision?
It is a free country and if they decide an empty chair will do less harm than their leader then get on with it.

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

I don't think anyone disagrees with why they did it, but more the idea that, as PM, you should be able to handle some questioning.

I think that believing the future PM should be put under scrutiny in front of the electorate is a legitimate and sensible position to take.

What? Splutter! Piffle! When one is of the learned, privileged classes, one does not need to debase oneself to being questioned by the peasants.

every political party thinks the BBC is out to get them which probably means they are doing a good job.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Yeah. You think with all the regulation around elections and actually having a state run broadcaster, you would be able to put some rules in about the minimum amount of scrutiny on TV and radio the parties leaders should be exposed to.

How would you judge which parties are to be included, and who would make that decision?
It is a free country and if they decide an empty chair will do less harm than their leader then get on with it.

It's about how you implement the rules - you could say for example the rule is if 4 independent (verified by the electoral comission) put your party as polling more than x% (say, 10), then you get a slot on the debate or whatever.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

I don't think anyone disagrees with why they did it, but more the idea that, as PM, you should be able to handle some questioning.

I think that believing the future PM should be put under scrutiny in front of the electorate is a legitimate and sensible position to take.

What? Splutter! Piffle! When one is of the learned, privileged classes, one does not need to debase oneself to being questioned by the peasants.

every political party thinks the BBC is out to get them which probably means they are doing a good job.

It's very disappointing that scrutiny has come to be understood as 'out to get them'.

Pross

Quite a Trump like response in reminding Channel 4 that their broadcasting licence is coming up for renewal soon as well.

rick_chasey

wtf are tories doing with this buy british protectionist sh!te.

Do they not know this is a) shooting yourself massively in the foot and b) make the EU negs even more difficult.

No they don't care.

cycleclinic

surely that means dont buy irish then. If so its a cunning way of solving the irish border issue. wee]ll we dont trade with them anyway...

Scotland for the most paret does not see itself as british so to take the tories literally it also mean dont buy scottish. Have they though this through or are there a list of caveats published on factcheck CCHQ.

As for leaders debates they are way too superfical to be of any use because the public is too dim for them to be able to handle complex discussion on a various topics. Sorry, the leaders cant handle complex discussion on various topics. IT probably better the whole idea was scrapped as all it does is serve to make the election about the leaders when we are really voting on our MP. If the leader is that important why not elect the PM seperatley and the MP's in a different election. Thats not a serious suggestion.

I have not watched any of the leaders debates or the interviews. Its not that I am not interested but I dont find them informative.

pblakeney

cycleclinic said:

If the leader is that important why not elect the PM seperatley and the MP's in a different election. Thats not a serious suggestion.

Why not?
It is entirely possible that your local MP elect for a party may be brilliant but the leader a complete twunt, and vice versa. How do you vote currently? Good local but suffer the PM, or vice versa? It is a conundrum for some.

cycleclinic

not in south suffolk. The conservative incumbunent is shall we shall we say back bench cannon fodder. He can be reliabibly be expected to be marched into the division lobbies and vote how he is told to. Safe seat too.

I am actually full of great ideas that will never happen because they are great. That a conceit by the way. They might actually be terrible.

rjsterry

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

Too late to move, so the message is to get and vote conservative to avoid going round in circles for however much longer...

My vote is already in the post.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

A majority of one wouldn't have made much difference given the Tory rebels.

thecycleclinic

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

That's why I have agin been shoving leaflets through the door for a party that supports PR. My 7 year old helped me today. She was quite good at it but thought the party was called labour terracats.

First past the post does mean parties focus there policy offering to marginal and other seats they need, that win elections. Everyone else is frankly less important. It become a very rotten system.

Then there is local government. The government have stopped the block grant to councils. Councils now fund themselves but they cant fund themselves sufficiently to pay for all the services they need to offer. Services are mandated by law. Councils dont set policy they implement it and manage those services but now have to raise all the money to meet them. Right to buy end up filling the states coffers as 70% of the discounted value goes to the treasury, and the remaining to council but they cant plough that straight back into a new house. Selling three to fund one is not a great deal when the council can say no to a sale. When businesses pay there rates the council keep the admin costs and the percentage of the growth in rates. The bulk of what's paid goes to the state. In babergh council there is 10 million that can be borrowed for housing. That's at an interest rate of 6% yet the government borrows for alot less.the problem is though land. Years of cuts have meant councils have sold land. Suffolk county council owns alot of land but that a different organisation and conservative controlled, babergh is no overal control so the county council is not so keen on releasing land for council house development toa district council within its boarders. Madness.

No wonder many dont vote in council elections they lack the power to make a big difference and yet they are managing important services and assets that really matter.

Yes our system of government is broken. It need reform along with the voting system. It's no wonder the slogan take back control resonated so well. It is a shame the poltical debate has not moved to reforms to the system of government which is what will address this big problem.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

Too late to move, so the message is to get and vote conservative to avoid going round in circles for however much longer...

My vote is already in the post.

What makes you think Johnson won't go round in circles even with a majority? Passing the WAB is the easy bit. You surely don't seriously believe he'll have a trade deal done by this time next year, do you?

thecycleclinic

Johnson has done a may. He has made statements that mean he will fail. The further we diverge from the eus regulations the longer (and the more limited) a trade deal will take. For example if we want uk steel companies to be able to sell.into the eu on zero tariffs or reduced tariffs and quote for eu member states government contracts then our government will ha e to abide by state aid rules. There are state aid rules in two rules too which is why the usa and eu are in a trade spat at present.

The deal that can be sorted in 5 months is single market and customs union then it gets ratified by everyone. That's not what the government is aiming for.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

Too late to move, so the message is to get and vote conservative to avoid going round in circles for however much longer...

My vote is already in the post.

What makes you think Johnson won't go round in circles even with a majority? Passing the WAB is the easy bit. You surely don't seriously believe he'll have a trade deal done by this time next year, do you?

I'm talking about getting the WA done. Without a majority the other parties will be able to block it as they have done before.

Although as demonstrated when the pressure was on and both sides had the will to find a solution to the WA, there is the potential to get a trade deal sorted - although I reckon the extension option will be needed. Clearly no guarantees though given how long the EU can take over these things.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

As an illustration of how wonky our electoral system is, and how unreliable national share of vote is as a predictor of seats, this is pretty breathtaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1200420368764297216

75 VOTES! That was the difference between a working majority for May and the last 3 years of cluster****ery.

If you want to make a difference (to the next GE), move to a marginal.

Too late to move, so the message is to get and vote conservative to avoid going round in circles for however much longer...

My vote is already in the post.

What makes you think Johnson won't go round in circles even with a majority? Passing the WAB is the easy bit. You surely don't seriously believe he'll have a trade deal done by this time next year, do you?

I'm talking about getting the WA done. Without a majority the other parties will be able to block it as they have done before.

Although as demonstrated when the pressure was on and both sides had the will to find a solution to the WA, there is the potential to get a trade deal sorted - although I reckon the extension option will be needed. Clearly no guarantees though given how long the EU can take over these things.

I think that's a racing certainty. Nobody thinks he can do a deal worth having in the time because of the stated aim of diverging from EU regs. Unless of course he's lying about that as well, which is a possibility, but quite a U turn even by his standards.

rick_chasey

A lot of talk of getting things done.

Not much about getting things done right.

Then again, the main ducking interviews with Andrew Neil will find his meetings as PM much easier.

We’ve all seen the bits in that foreign office programme where he literally cannot stick to a brief.

rick_chasey

Assuming the Tory voters here don’t believe when Heseltine says “getting Brexit done is the great delusion” and Ivan Rogers dating that Johnson is engineering a “crisis that is likely to confront us at the Christmas yet to come - Christmas 2020”??