Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Well she won.

I don’t fucking understand politics.

[andrea]

Think of it like this: if she is evicted, whoever does the evicting has to be in charge, and be held responsible of, the ensuing mess.

[Dorsidwarf]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46899466

May wins the No-confidence vote by 19 votes

[hector13]

They wouldn't be held responsible for the mess though. Just point to the vote yesterday and the context around it, that's who and what is responsible.

It boggles my mind that a third of her party can say that the one thing she was expected (realistically or not) to get right was not right, but that this is okay despite her insistence that nothing else will work.

[Loud Whispers]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46899466

May wins the No-confidence vote by 19 votes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Anglo is Eternal

[Egan_BW]

Think of it like this: if she is evicted, whoever does the evicting has to be in charge, and be held responsible of, the ensuing mess.

If only britan could very obviously and publically have nobody at the steering wheel like us americans. Nobody for the public to blame if nobody does anything!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's political cowardice.... something you see a lot with populists of all stripes. In this particular case: since he doesn't want to say he is either in favor or against brexit or a second ref, he plays the "I'll put it up to a vote" card. Which
- is the opposite of leadership
- can be easily manipulated by deputizing whichever group you think is likely to say they want what you want... whichever that is.


In Spain Pablo Iglesias does this a lot. To ridiculous extremes.

How is it cowardice to not intentionally make a bad decision? Nobody wants to deal with the Brexit paradox, waiting as many years as possible for cancer and winter oil rations to claim Brexiteers is 100% the right call.

Besides, everybody knows Corbyn is going to go for the socialist Brexit once Lizzie consumes Wheatfield for her life energies.

[Loud Whispers]

How is it cowardice to not intentionally make a bad decision? Nobody wants to deal with the Brexit paradox, waiting as many years as possible for cancer and winter oil rations to claim Brexiteers is 100% the right call.

Besides, everybody knows Corbyn is going to go for the socialist Brexit once Lizzie consumes Wheatfield for her life energies.

It is cowardice to remain in ambiguous indecisiveness for mercenary gain in lieu of making an actual choice as a party leader must do; it is comparable to Theresa May answering questions about her Brexit policy with 'brexit means brexit.' Such non-answers are deliberately nothing so they can buy time to collect information and figure out which side can secure their personal career, this is however to the detriment of the party and nation in question. When used in conjunction with a general election, it is a nifty way to dupe voters into assuming their leader supports their policy choice, whilst in actuality will act against their interests once elected. It is also incorrect to state that there is no one who wishes to deal with Brexit; Jeremy Corbyn is himself one who wishes to, whilst the Conservative party has a few such as David Davis or JRM who would take the mantle were it allowed by their party. When Jeremy Corbyn was less relevant, and more able to speak his mind, he spent his life critical of the EU. In the EU referendum, he continued to speak against the EU as a Thatcherite monstrosity, but lauded its capacity to unite European socialist movements to form continent-wide reform. After the referendum, he said he disagreed with the outcome but that it should be implemented as soon as possible. From this my impression is he is consistent, but is also cognizant of the number of times Labour party MPs have tried to remove him from power. Given that many Labour members voted leave, whilst the Labour MPs voted Remain and want a second referendum, he is adopting politician speak so that whoever he pisses off, he will not be accountable - as after all, he made no decision on the matter.

It's a classic battle between Blairish liberals and socialists garnished with liberal Tory nonsense which is likely having a profound effect on the normally outspoken politician. One hopes that this is not a trend, as one of the things which made Corbyn endearing in the first place was his willingness to speak in favour of what he truly believed in regardless of its popularity or unpopularity...

[smjjames]

.... somehow I don't think they'll drop their decades-old policy to help out the British goverment 

Well, they wouldn't be helping the government per se, just having their own voice in the whole Brexit mess.

Heres a thought that could help solve it, maybe instead of this, what, trilateral (maybe quadrilateral if you have RoI in) thing going on, they can instead have NI and Ireland discuss the border issue separately, would make it less complicated. Or maybe have it be between NI and the EU.

It might not be politically feaseable due to how things are set up, but since the problem is three different parties who can't come to an agreement and are possibly talking past each other, the idea is to simplify things so that talks on the specific issue is between those most directly involved, namely RoI and NI. NI has a degree of autonomy, right? That goes into the idea as well.

I know Sinn Fein would probably push an independence/reunification attempt, but this is over a very specific issue. Incidentially, I saw somewhere that the reunification option is an available fourth option (provided by the Good Friday Agreement) which nobody seems to have been considering or got talked about as an option. Maybe after Brexit crashes through (once the initial anger and frustration has cooled down some, at least), it could get considered, no idea.

[hector13]

They won’t do that because then the SNP will get all pissed off they don’t have that option.

I’m also reasonably sure the GFA mentions unification vis a vis public support, which would require a referendum. It’s maybe too early to be thinking of that since Theresa May’s deal is dead, and she’s been pushing that so hard I find it tremendously unlikely she’ll have a plan B ready for March 29th, never mind Friday, as per the recently passed amendment in parlament.

Never mind thinking of a referendum as it relates to decades of unrest and hatred between the two sides. It’s not a feasible option unless someone finds concrete evidence Brexit is going to break reality or something.

I eagerly await May’s next idea though. Should be fascinating what she can come up with in two days that she wasn’t able to figure out in two years.

[smjjames]

They won’t do that because then the SNP will get all pissed off they don’t have that option.

The option of negotiating a separate deal? Still though, the point is to try and get past the impasse. Talking about reunification in the middle of Brexit would be the wrong time to do it, which is why I said after things have cooled off, if there is the support for it.

They still have the option of letting Brexit crash through, roll the dice and pray to the RNG gods, and try to contain the aftermath.

I’m also reasonably sure the GFA mentions unification vis a vis public support, which would require a referendum. It’s maybe too early to be thinking of that since Theresa May’s deal is dead, and she’s been pushing that so hard I find it tremendously unlikely she’ll have a plan B ready for March 29th, never mind Friday, as per the recently passed amendment in parlament.

Never mind thinking of a referendum as it relates to decades of unrest and hatred between the two sides. It’s not a feasible option unless someone finds concrete evidence Brexit is going to break reality or something.

I eagerly await May’s next idea though. Should be fascinating what she can come up with in two days that she wasn’t able to figure out in two years.

Last I read, May was going to put a new one out on Monday, so, theres a bit more time than that, but your point still stands. I also read in the same article that they weren't making any big changes, just tweaks here and there, which isn't likely to change much...

[MorleyDev]

Disclaimer: Not intended to be a condemnation or commendation so much as an observation.

Something I think Corbyn has struggled with since becoming Party Leader is balancing his own thoughts and opinions with those of the party he represents. He wasn't exactly groomed for the position, so I can see how an 'outsider' to leadership would struggle with that.

When he's acting as Leader of the Labour Party, the question is always which hat should he be wearing? Should he speak his mind on issues or should be speaking as the Labour Policy mind? When he was first elected he did the former a lot more, and I can't help but think that around the last general election he shifted to doing the latter more. His election to Party Leader has moved Labour's policy position somewhat, but it hasn't moved so much as to be in complete alignment with his own.

Like how he's stated before that he is a Republican and thinks we should abolish the monarchy (which I happen to agree with but that's a whole other argument*) or that Britain should denuclearise, but the Labour Party doesn't have those things as official policy.

And then you have a topic like Brexit, where the big broad church political parties are already split down the middle, and your against a leader who is bullishly trying to force their opinions through their party and failing miserably at that, well...Would you like to play a nice game of chess instead?

* Mine is just that it's just kinda silly to have a Queen in 2019. You can go back and forth on the economics and whether others can do that and whether they cost more than they bring in and that all you like, people have. But...I always come back to, "Yeah but it's the future now and we still have a hereditary royal family imbued by a god that most of their subjects don't believe in to rule over the land. Doesn't that just seem daft to anybody else?"

[hector13]

Mitary reservists have been put on standby in case of no deal.

Better late than never for making plans for this, I guess?

[ChairmanPoo]

* Mine is just that it's just kinda silly to have a Queen in 2019. You can go back and forth on the economics and whether others can do that and whether they cost more than they bring in and that all you like, people have. But...I always come back to, "Yeah but it's the future now and we still have a hereditary royal family imbued by a god that most of their subjects don't believe in to rule over the land. Doesn't that just seem daft to anybody else?"

Yo, convinced republican, antimonarchist,  with a special dislike for the Bourbons here. I have a question: so in the UK monarchists also market the monarchy as being cheaper than republics?
Far from my intention to meddle into the politics of other nations, but if it resembles in any way the Spanish monarchy's gambit (which isn't necessarily true, as the Bourbons stand up as particularily sleazy as far as inbred European nobility goes), there are a lot of costs that fall outside the "official" accounts.

Mind you, as I said, I'm a republican by principle. If I were British, or Dutch, I'd be a British or Dutch republican. I don't think heads of state should inherit the role. I don't have anything personal against Elizabeth Windsor and I have a certain sympathy for healthy active elderly people. Likewise, I have nothing personal against Rania of Jordan, I think her humanitarian work is praiseworthy, plus I kind of had a crush on her as a kid. If either walked into my workplace I'd treat them respectfully... but I'd not hide that I dont believe in monarchies if asked. In a polite manner of course.

I mention this because the same does not apply to Philip of Bourbon, his father, or most of his family (though I do kind of pity the dowager queen for being married to her openly unfaithful husband for decades). If the little shit dropped in for a photo-op I'd probably do my best to avoid that shit because I think I'd be unable to shake the asshat's hand without grimacing. I loathe that guy.

(Truth to be told as years have passed I've become more attached to my home region and culture rather than to the whole country.  )

[TD1]

If either walked into my workplace I'd treat them respectfully... but I'd not hide that I dont believe in monarchies if asked. In a polite manner of course.

From my point of view, "Elizabeth Windsor" is deserving of respect. This, in my current definition, is something different from what you label 'respect', which I would term 'be polite towards'.

She's a deserving symbol of the nation who has spent most of her life in public service, among many other things. Her title lends her more gravitas, has greater implications, than "old lady who I like because she's healthy." It means more, and if you don't feel it personally, you have to admit that a great many people do; I would even suggest most.

The following sums it up:
I would be polite to Elizabeth Windsor, as I would be polite to anyone who seems deserving of it.
I would respect the Queen.

That being said, there are some who are not deserving of being that symbol, and whose character is not suited to it. Many see Trump as just one such.

Alas, we must separate person from position and simply be glad that there do exist those who are worthy of their place.

If Elizabeth Windsor were a disreputable lay about who stole candy from kids, I'd sum my argument up as follows:

I would not be polite to Elizabeth Windsor, as I would not be polite to anyone not deserving of it.
I would respect the Queen.

The issue being that that respect entails politeness unless in private, but ah well. Even a public meeting isn't hugely likely.