|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
jBrereton posted:Nah there's no way they'd risk it for a biscuit on losing power to Labour by splitting the party during its period in government.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:And yes, Article 50 is revocable in a legal sense That hasn't been tested in the court that can decide that matter. The recent UK court cases proceeded on the basis that A50 is irrevocable - by agreement by both sides - so if the SC didn't kick it up to CJEU then that's that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
At least one good thing came out of tonight: https://twitter.com/libdempress/status/841411381526200324 (the press office is top bants)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
TinTower's revisionism over the 2015 GE is quite something to behold. I can only imagine there was some more interesting NUS politics going on causing great distraction.LemonDrizzle posted:I don't think you can credibly argue "they wouldn't do it" when they did it to the last majority Tory government. The thing Cameron loved about the coalition was being able to blame the LDs for every compromise, especially when it's what he wanted anyway. The (relative) nutter wing of the Tories had little leverage when their threatened rebellions were met with equal and opposite reaction from the coalition partner. The problem is that the much feted "moderates" like Ken Clarke, Soubry, or Morgan, don't have the numbers and/or guts to gently caress with the government as much. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I don't think you can credibly argue "they wouldn't do it" when they did it to the last majority Tory government. Like remember that Major won the most votes of anyone, ever, thusfar in UK politics 13 years into a Tory government that had been through poll tax, various corruption scandals and generally screwing the working class for over a decade with apparent electoral impunity. Why not have some poisonous and stupid debate on Europe, who's going to stop you? Then Smith and especially Blair turned it around!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Do you think the Tories really thought they could get away with ditching the EU referendum promise, after what happened to the Lib Dems? They could've got away with ditching the tax credits cuts, but the EU referendum was front and centre of their campaign in 2015.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Do you think the Tories really thought they could get away with ditching the EU referendum promise, after what happened to the Lib Dems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
It's almost as if there wasn't a party consistently on 12% in the polls near the election that posed a danger to the Tories' hopes of keeping their Eurosceptic voters…
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Yes because they're not the loving lib dems they're a party of government, and no other major party wanted it. Reversing on the manifesto commitment for an EU referendum sounds like a good way to ensure that a certain purple coloured party became 'major' in British politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's almost as if there wasn't a party consistently on 12% in the polls near the election that posed a danger to the Tories' hopes of keeping their Eurosceptic voters… And as we can see from the Brexit referendum it isn't the Tories that really had to worry about them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Wading through this bilge to address the points you clumsily made: I'm sorry, was I a bit too "urban" for you to comprehend? And it was the questions I asked that I wanted addressed (that's kind of the point of asking them), but why would you break the habit of a posting lifetime by not cherrypicking? Pissflaps posted:voting No was the only option of the first referendum that would keep Scotland in the eu, it wasn't 'false', Scotland was told "the only way to stay in the EU is to vote in". And then they voted in, in a close vote. And now, despite voting strongly against leaving the EU, they are being dragged out. That removes scotland from the EU. Which they voted against. Which they were told was the opposite of what would happen with the first referendum. Hmmn. So scotland voted for the option you said would keep scotland in the eu. And yet after voting for it... They won't be staying in the EU. But the claim wasn't false. Uh huh. Pissflaps posted:and I think Scottish independence is a bad idea for the same reasons why Brexit is a bad idea. Supporting the former while opposing the latter is inconsistent. I asked a question, but not on your opinions on if you think its a good idea or a bad idea. The question was, compacted slightly- "Brexit is going to be really poo poo. Why the hell should scotland remain for it when they didn't vote for it.". And I genuinely mean it flaps, if you spent a third of the time you spend bashing out "corbyn bad" on here out doorknocking and leafleting instead, you would make a great tory councillor, a real asset to the team!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:In 1992 Labour's position looked utterly terminal. Like as bad or maybe even worse than right now. Black Wednesday turned it around. Labour crushed it in the polls from that very week and zombie Marx would've carried 1997 on that wave. It turning a page on "old Labour" was really the key then Kinnock wouldn't have done so badly. TinTower posted:Do you think the Tories really thought they could get away with ditching the EU referendum promise, after what happened to the Lib Dems? Yes because most people beyond UKIP and the Tory right didn't really want an EU referendum at that point and being shameless liars and "pragmatists" is a part of being a Tory politician. IIRC it was bacon sandwiches and the SNP "threat" that was front and centre of the 2015 GE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/biuk/status/841372345289846784 Corbyn fails to show up for his own rally. What a loving idiot. TinTower fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:After two successive referendum wins I'm convinced he thought himself invincible. The writing should have been on the wall after the Indyref when they managed to pull it out despite having been for the most part a horribly run campaign where they spent so much time playing catch up to a more unified and prepared opposition. When it came to the EU referendum they weren't prepared for the amount of money that the Leave campaigns had behind them, their reach and their unified nature. The Tories had complete control over when to call it, knowledge ahead of time of when they would call it, and still somehow were always playing catch up to the organisation of the leave groups. They thought that the leave campaign was playing catch up when the leave campaign had won from the outset. I've never wanted a referendum held because barely anyone in the UK likes the EU but Cameron doesn't come into contact with the people that the propoganda of the last few decades has got to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
TinTower posted:https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/84137834158846774 He couldn't make it after the Brexit bill vote began later than expected. The rally (of only around 100 people) was addressed by McDonnell and Abbott instead. Not really a big story?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:In 1992 Labour's position looked utterly terminal. Like as bad or maybe even worse than right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Reversing on the manifesto commitment for an EU referendum sounds like a good way to ensure that a certain purple coloured party became 'major' in British politics. 2015 was almost certainly "peak UKIP" in electoral terms though. Had there been a continuation of the coalition (or a Lab govt) then there would have been no referendum and they would continue to win MEPs but never win any Westminster seats. At this point we'd be bored to death over crocodile tears from Lib Dems claiming they had slightly lessened Osborne's austerity program (again) for the current parliament and we should all be oh so grateful to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
TinTower posted:https://twitter.com/biuk/status/841372345289846784 "This page doesn't exist" ed: oh you fixed it
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
I did point out that he would have to go in and actually vote at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the purpose of Lords is if they're just meant to step aside on legislation the government really wants. Are they only there to lodge symbolic protests and then rubber stamp the decisions of the lower house? Are they meant to just form advisory committees (solely on unimportant laws)? And I don't see that delaying Article 50 is pointless either. If a week is a long time in politics a year is a lifetime. There's plenty that could alter even in the next month or two both at home and with elections happening in Europe. Even if nothing changes it is at least extra time for EU citizens in the UK and Britons abroad to prepare themselves for the worst, get citizenship, whatever. Also extra time that we're all benefiting from that sweet EU legislation, trade, ECHR...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Who the hell would be stopping them in an alternative reality where Cameron hadn't included a referendum commitment in the 2015 manifesto? Corbyn and McDonnell? Like they dodged a bullet in a big way in 2015 and the party should have known it. Probably did know it, really, which is why the Brexit side was fronted by someone who wanted to lose gracefully and put himself out there as presumptive new head of the party and Michael Gove who everyone hates/d, with a massive propaganda effort from within government against them. Corbyn looked bad ish in 2015 but was generating new enthusiasm for Labour after The Miliband Doldrums, it's only after Brexit that nearly everyone turned on him, which was a pretty unlikely combination of events all stacked up into one (Remain campaign somehow fails, Tories go to pieces, the PLP like loving mugs decide to call their own leadership election as well between some nobody pfizer rep that people don't want and Corbyn, and then Corbyn somehow wins but continues to be tragically inept in the face of a Tory government that has caved on numerous policy decisions within its first 9 months).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:In 1992 Labour's position looked utterly terminal. Like as bad or maybe even worse than right now. No it didn't. Major won but only with a small majority, there was an overall swing to Labour that just wasn't quite big enough, and there was every reason to expect that Labour would win the next election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm not sure what the purpose of Lords is if they're just meant to step aside on legislation the government really wants. Are they only there to lodge symbolic protests and then rubber stamp the decisions of the lower house? Are they meant to just form advisory committees (solely on unimportant laws)? It's just a dumb holdover like the queen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
The Lords insisted on more rounds of ping pong on retroreflective tape on HGVs than they did about parliamentary sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It's just a dumb holdover like the queen. So is our entire system of government though. I'd like to think if it were redesigned from scratch we could do better now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Like they dodged a bullet in a big way in 2015 and the party should have known it...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:So is our entire system of government though. I'd like to think if it were redesigned from scratch we could do better now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:They were right to say Scotland was out in 2014 if it left. They will be right again when Scotland is already out in 2019. But that wasn't the claim, the claim was, "remaining in the UK is the only way to stay in the EU". Turns out the only way for scotland to be in the EU is to leave the UK. jBrereton posted:Yes it is, and Verhofstadt's opinion on this is a big part of the reason it is inconceivable. Would you care to explain why his opinion is so easily disregarded rather than simply stating it as thus? I mean if the guy is an irrelevant fuckwad, my bad, but please explain- as lead brexit negotiator for the EU, I thought he might have some insight on poo poo inside the EU that your average SA poster might not. I mean then you also have the head of the European commission in the UK saying “There are a number of official candidate countries – Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, [but] they are still quite some way away from meeting the criteria for membership. And obviously were Scotland to become independent, they would join that list. Now, it might be easier for an independent Scotland to meet those criteria. The fact that all your legislation has to be in alignment with existing European rules would presumably not be too difficult for Scotland, compared with, say, Montenegro. And that might enable them to move faster than others.” Which would point to an article 48 rather than article 49 succession- which makes sense as they already are demonstrably compliant and conversant with european law. Even the strongest objections I can find from spain seem to amount to "well it can't be an automatic thing, they would have to be out of the UK first" which just seems to be the drat rules anyway- no mention of any kind of veto or even a block on negotiation from the spanish government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm not sure what the purpose of Lords is if they're just meant to step aside on legislation the government really wants. Are they only there to lodge symbolic protests and then rubber stamp the decisions of the lower house? Are they meant to just form advisory committees (solely on unimportant laws)? I'm only guessing here, but I imagine EU citizens would prefer some certainty over 'extra time to prepare for the worst'. As fiercely as she fought against the amendment May is fairly unlikely to actually throw them all out of the country considering the political and economic chaos it would unleash. Considering that after all the effort the Lords put in the government actually strengthened it's majority the chances of further ping-pong achieving anything was zero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
jabby posted:I'm only guessing here, but I imagine EU citizens would prefer some certainty over 'extra time to prepare for the worst'. As fiercely as she fought against the amendment May is fairly unlikely to actually throw them all out of the country considering the political and economic chaos it would unleash. Considering that after all the effort the Lords put in the government actually strengthened it's majority the chances of further ping-pong achieving anything was zero. Would have been fun though naw? Possibly also a better show of opposition than 'OK government says so'. Certainly there's a lot of EU nationals who are now in no doubt about their risky status. I don't think it lends to the positive for the UK. E: typo
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:Would have been fun though naw? Possibly also a better show of opposition than 'OK government says so'. Certainly there's a lot of EU nationals who are now in no doubt about their risky status. I don't think it lends to the positive for the UK. It would have been a PR coup for the Tories and just led to a longer period of faffing around before Article 50 was triggered. The near complete lack of rebels on the Tory side shows the futility of trying to force the amendments any further. The only silver lining is when a Brexit disaster happens the Tories will own it completely with no 'our hands were tied' nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm not sure what the purpose of Lords is if they're just meant to step aside on legislation the government really wants. Are they only there to lodge symbolic protests and then rubber stamp the decisions of the lower house? Are they meant to just form advisory committees (solely on unimportant laws)? They're supposed to make the government think twice and the government is supposed to be responsible and listen to their sage advice. Of course like much of our dumb political system it doesn't actually work once people stop following this gentleman's agreement attitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
The system doesn't work against someone like May. Unelected and on a power trip. Let's not forget that. The person in charge of the most important political upheaval in recent UK history is unelected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
jabby posted:I'm only guessing here, but I imagine EU citizens would prefer some certainty over 'extra time to prepare for the worst'. As fiercely as she fought against the amendment May is fairly unlikely to actually throw them all out of the country considering the political and economic chaos it would unleash. Considering that after all the effort the Lords put in the government actually strengthened it's majority the chances of further ping-pong achieving anything was zero. Personally I'd have liked some evidence that at least some UK politicians aren't completely insane and willing to treat me as a bargaining chip but idk that's just me. Edit: And "they wouldn't do it because it'd be too damaging" isn't a great argument because they've shown that they're perfectly happy to destroy the economy to get votes, see; Brexit Right now it feels like no-one in parliament gives a poo poo, and it's terrifying. Gravitas Shortfall fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:The system doesn't work against someone like May. Unelected and on a power trip. Let's not forget that. The person in charge of the most important political upheaval in recent UK history is unelected. On the other hand, Trump was. As was Cameron. I don't think it would make much difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:The system doesn't work against someone like May. Unelected and on a power trip. Let's not forget that. The person in charge of the most important political upheaval in recent UK history is unelected. I'd rather we stopped talking as though we had a presidential system. May was elected as MP by her constituents and as party leader by her party, just like every other PM. She was not Tory party leader at the last general election, but she was in a position of considerable power. Nothing about this is not the voters' fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
jabby posted:The only silver lining is when a Brexit disaster happens the Tories will own it completely with no 'our hands were tied' nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
jabby posted:The only silver lining is when a Brexit disaster happens the Tories will own it completely with no 'our hands were tied' nonsense. Could have worked if Labour hadn't run a three line whip on voting for it. Twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:But that wasn't the claim, the claim was, "remaining in the UK is the only way to stay in the EU". Turns out the only way for scotland to be in the EU is to leave the UK. That was the only way for Scotland to guarantee staying in the EU. Most guarantees of course are only good for a few years these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Lol the tories will own absolutely nothing. I for one would welcome certainty as soon as possible, even if it's the "you gotta get the gently caress away from ARE ISLANDS in two years" kind. PS today the pound will definitely get a pounding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 08:37
|
|
