Ship of Fools: Smart boy, Cameron

Thread: Smart boy, Cameron Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029989

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I feel the current PM deserves his own personalised invective thread.

Of all the smug, shallow, arrogant, unprincipaled, short termist, self-interested, overweening pisspots to occupy the office, he takes the entire McVitie's production line.

Tory Master Plan (one assumes). Cut social provision. Stoke the inarticulate sense of injustice, deprivation and resentment in the population they served. Blame shift to a nebulous 'them' - Brussels, immigrants. Appease the worst element in your own party in the interests of greasing your way back into power. Conduct incompetent and divisive government until it is time to light the fuse on the keg that will blow apart the economic and social stability of the country. And very possible shrink it by a northern landmass.

That he will lose his job is small comfort to the thousands who will lose theirs and the millions whose lives will now be fractured, dislocated or impoverished as a result of his bloody Etonian smartarsery.

My curse attend you.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

He will go down in history as the man who destroyed the UK.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I imagine Blair is grateful to Cameron for this. In British historical terms, the Iraq enquiry will take second place in the early twenty-first century period.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

He's just resigned.

He's alright anyway. Even if his investments have tanked, they won't go too low to live on.

Michael Fallon has just said that he will go down as one of our great PMs. My MP thinks that??!!

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Glad as I am to see him go, replacing him with Shagger Johnson, Nosferatu Duncan-Smith and Farage the Human Tapeworm will not be an improvement.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I am reminded of that Dilbert cartoon: "Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or evil."

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
He's just resigned.

He's alright anyway. Even if his investments have tanked, they won't go too low to live on.

Michael Fallon has just said that he will go down as one of our great PMs. My MP thinks that??!!

Missing word. "great witless PMs." There have been a few.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm amazed that an old Etonian rivalry has been allowed to progress to the point where it has brought down an entire country. But I guess that's the democracy everyone's been talking about.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

So Mr Cameron is now on course to achieve the collapse of capitalism in the City of London, independence for Scotland, the reunification of Ireland, and the return of Gibraltar to the Spanish.

IS HE SECRETLY BEING CONTROLLED BY JEREMY CORBYN???

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm amazed that an old Etonian rivalry has been allowed to progress to the point where it has brought down an entire country.

My thoughts exactly.

[Tear]

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

[Waterworks]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Now now. I don't think history will judge Cameron to be the worst Prime Minster ever. Bloody Stupid is in line to succeed him.
Apparently BS is now saying that there's no rush to leave. The man wouldn't know what a principle was if it impaled him up the backside.

[ 24. June 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Presumably, Cameron miscalculated that there were enough pro-Remain votes amongst Tories and Labour voters. In the end, he seemed to be depending on the latter, big mistake.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'm thinking that if this could happen to the UK and us 'mericans have this horrific possible future of our own looming...? [Eek!]

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

I wonder if "how to emigrate to Canada" searches have gone up on google.co.uk?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I wonder if "how to emigrate to Canada" searches have gone up on google.co.uk?

I read that "What's the E.U.?" searches have gone up. Leading people to think they voted to leave without even knowing what it was they were leaving.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I wonder if "how to emigrate to Canada" searches have gone up on google.co.uk?

Well, Ireland is in the crosshairs, it appears!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I read that "What's the E.U.?" searches have gone up. Leading people to think they voted to leave without even knowing what it was they were leaving.

I expect a lot of that is children trying to find out what all the fuss is about.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I read that "What's the E.U.?" searches have gone up. Leading people to think they voted to leave without even knowing what it was they were leaving.
I expect a lot of that is children trying to find out what all the fuss is about.

Or maybe not. There was a rise in searches at 10pm last night, just after the polls closed, and then a huge surge just after 4am this morning, when the result became inevitable. To me that suggests "Oh bugger, what were we voting for?"

[ 24. June 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
He will go down in history as the man who destroyed the UK.

I always thought he would be remembered as the PM who shagged a pig. As it turns out, he will be remembered as the PM who shagged a pig and [nearly] destroyed the country as a whole.

I only say nearly, because, as I understand it, the referendum is not binding, and there is a possibility that someone can have the guts to stop this wholesale collapse. Todays economic news should give Leave supporters an idea of what would happen if we actually were to leave - it will be worse still.

I am glad that Cameron has resigned. He is a despicable shit. But he is by no means the only one. BlowJob, IBS and many of the others are worse.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I only say nearly, because, as I understand it, the referendum is not binding, and there is a possibility that someone can have the guts to stop this wholesale collapse.

You mean they should say "wrong answer, try again"? That sounds precisely like the sort of evil plot the EU might cook up [Devil]

(Besides, given the tone of the campaign, I think that attempting any such thing in this case would almost inevitably provoke major civil unrest in the UK. Much as I think referendums* are stupid, the political establishment failing to take notice of them would be stupider still).

*or at the very least, the planning, enactment and context of this one

[ 24. June 2016, 17:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I hesitate to comment, as its not my country, so here's a bit of what it looks like from outside:

If you look at England and Wales, the prosperous, well-educated areas voted to stay (London, the south coast and stockbroker belt, Vale of Glamorgan, Oxford, Cambridge and a couple of cities like Cardiff and York). Poor and depressed areas voted to leave, sometimes overwhelmingly.

It seems to me that you can't just assume that the EU is such an obviously good thing for individual Brits that only the stupid would vote to leave (a sense I've been picking up on this thread, though I admit I may be wrong). You have to examine why so many of the poor and oppressed voted to leave when those most of the Brits on this board would call their oppressors voted to stay.

The well-educated, the liberals, the "people who think like us" who assume they know best and don't understand why the poor and the oppressed don't seem to agree.

JOhn

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

John, I'm sorry, but I think that a spectacular job has been done of convincing people to excise their own nose in a move to correct the attitude of their face.

For that reason it's hard to hear anything other than pain. The question of whose pain, and what it means, is for later. Right now, we hurt too much, and are mourning for a world which just got smashed. Not bruised or distorted; smashed.

A little time is needed.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It seems to me that you can't just assume that the EU is such an obviously good thing for individual Brits that only the stupid would vote to leave (a sense I've been picking up on this thread, though I admit I may be wrong).

Many have said it would be stupid to leave (I think it is) and more have said that the terms of the campaign, on both sides, have been largely stupid.

That's not the same as saying the Leave voters are stupid. They have been ill-informed, firstly by the EU itself which is chronically bad at PR, and secondly by the campaign. The EU has been a useful scapegoat and bogeyman.

It is much much easier to portray it thus than to wade through the myriad institutions and processes that help people understand how it works. I couldn't name all the major EU institutions and their roles with certainty without checking, and I've discovered I'm a lot better-informed than many I chat to.

The fact is that modern life and the machinery that makes it work is massively complex. The really stupid thing was trying to boil that complexity down to a single, gratuitous, one-question referendum.

The result of simplifying the issues in that way is, essentially, brutality, which is what we've got.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Another thing (sorry) is that the better-educated have a better chance at getting a feel for Europe and what it does for them. Easier cross-border travel, easy opportunities for study abroad, inter-cultural encounters of all kinds... The benefits of being in the EU are far less tangible for somebody on income support who has trouble making it into a lively city centre, let alone to another country, and whose main encounter with foreigners is likely to be a neighbouring migrant family perceived as stealing their job.

[ 24. June 2016, 19:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
He will go down in history as the man who destroyed the UK.

That's a particularly dire legacy for the leader of the Conservative & Unionist Party.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Well what we have seen is a competition of Project Fear vs. Project Hate.

It appears that Project Hate has won out.

Callmedave never even tried to build a positive case for the EU in the very same way as he never built a positive case for the UK during Scotland's Indy campaign two years ago.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Corbyn tried to put a positive case for the EU, ironically enough, but the media covered very little of it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn tried to put a positive case for the EU, ironically enough, but the media covered very little of it.

Not in their interest to.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I couldn't find any pictures, but the news listing front page headlines for today had several of the newspapers saying how they'd achieved victory. Which rather sums up the media campaign.

Apparently there's a petition for a second referendum - crashing the yougov site. My mostly London based workmates didn't believe it was going to be a Leave vote and were fairly shell-shocked yesterday. That they were discussing this sitting in an office in an area that had voted 69.5% to leave, 30.5% to remain seemed to have passed them by entirely.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I only say nearly, because, as I understand it, the referendum is not binding, and there is a possibility that someone can have the guts to stop this wholesale collapse.
You mean they should say "wrong answer, try again"? That sounds precisely like the sort of evil plot the EU might cook up

(Besides, given the tone of the campaign, I think that attempting any such thing in this case would almost inevitably provoke major civil unrest in the UK. Much as I think referendums* are stupid, the political establishment failing to take notice of them would be stupider still).

*or at the very least, the planning, enactment and context of this one

I would need someone with guts and a lot of political savvy. I think by highlighting the lies of the leave campaign, and the deliberate misleading of people (backed by prosecutions, almost certainly of minor people), along with consideration of the economic impact (as demonstrated yesterday), it could be done.

The problem is, at the moment we are in total political freefall. And there is nobody obvious who can save us. I suspect somewhere we will crash land, and have to start again. I am not looking forward to it.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The benefits of being in the EU are far less tangible for somebody on income support who has trouble making it into a lively city centre, let alone to another country, and whose main encounter with foreigners is likely to be a neighbouring migrant family perceived as stealing their job.

Yes, although many of those who voted to leave must have been comfortably-off retirees living in pretty rural villages. (I stereotype in order to make my point).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Corbyn tried to put a positive case for the EU, ironically enough, but the media covered very little of it.

I think he put an honest case and reflected on his own principles and journey. Problem is, DT, he didn't change too many hearts and minds in the traditional Labour heartlands.

He's no Nye Bevan. Tides of history indeed.

"We shall lead our people to where they deserve to be led". Not up a gum tree by the likes of Nigel Farage.

I like and respect Jeremy Corbyn. He's a serious, principled man. But does he catch fire so that people will come to hear, and watch him burn? The Labour heartlands really need a bit of that. Not someone who will pander to their fears. Any old rabble rouser can do that. But someone who will rouse and raise them by communicating both principle and passion. That's the need.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If you watch the videos, and read accounts of those who attend, he's very good on the stump.

But it is very hard to fight an effective campaign when a) the media is busy watching the tory leadership contest and b) the mps are trying to undermine you *during* the campaign.

Corbyn was making speeches almost daily, how many clips did you see on the news vs Cameron/Boris ?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Problem is, DT, he didn't change too many hearts and minds in the traditional Labour heartlands.

I don't disagree with much of what you said, however I have a small problem with this current analysis. Let's take a look at polls:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Labour voters voted for Remain in the same proportion that voters for the SNP did - and I don't see people critiquing Sturgeon in the same way.

Both Sturgeon and Corbyn were somewhat fringe figures in the debate - in Corbyn's case that reflected his own personal journey as well as the disarray of his media team.

So 'Labour voter' becomes persom from the 'traditional Labour heartlands' which becomes "people who don’t support the Labour Party, don’t vote Labour, often don’t vote at all, but live in areas where the people who do vote are Labour, and so when they’re motivated, seemingly by anti-immigrant prejudice, to vote UKIP it’s somehow the Labour leader’s fault" (ht dsquared)

Lets not forget that a lot of these areas had a certain amount of support for the BNP going back 15 years (around 10% of so), which then magically disappears when UKIP arrive.

I'd agree with you that the longer term solution would be to articulate a properly social democratic set of policies without the baggage of neoliberalism, but that's difficult to do given the media culture of this country - which basically serves as a producer of manufactured outrage.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

Corbyn was making speeches almost daily, how many clips did you see on the news vs Cameron/Boris ?

Again agree with much of what you say - but there was a definite air of amateurism in the team surrounding Corbyn.

I've heard from people in the press who were sympathetic to him, who bemoaned Labour's ability to hit things like publishing deadlines that would have helped their message to get out properly.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I do think that relates to being screwed over by the plp - but I agree the remain vote from labour was similar proportion to SNP and manufacturing a leadership crosis off this is again wildly unhelpful of the plp.

(Especially as they have no curent alternative candidate who has any chance of winning a membership vote.)

[ 25. June 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Doublethink

I agree on the coverage point. One of the challenges of modern political leadership is that you do have find ways of capturing the news cycle and for all his merits, I really don't think Jeremy is very good at that. Boris is better at the "Big Dipper Ride".

By the way, I also think Jeremy's attempt to change the tone and temperature of political debate, from yah-boo to serious, has a lot of merit. But that's a long term agenda. The need this time was to get to hearts and minds and get the vote out.

I watched a couple of his speeches during the debate. I thought he made the points very well and answered questions very well. He's a serious, thoughtful, honest man with a serious, thoughtful, homiletic. Personally I find that refreshing. But I don't think it was what was needed on this occasion. I didn't need to be convinced.

[ 25. June 2016, 09:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ chris styles

Yes, I saw those figures and I agree your point. The move of the resentful poor away from Labour and towards BNP and now UKIP has been going on for some time. The issue is, how do you get them back to where their fathers and mothers were in the traditional Labour heartlands? Can you do that?

A passionate socialist communicator (like Nye Bevan) and others was not afraid to go for the high ground, point to collective aspirations and give principled answers. Passionate conviction carries weight. Unfortunately, so does rabble-rousing. But the latter does not bear weight for very long.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The move of the resentful poor away from Labour and towards BNP and now UKIP has been going on for some time. The issue is, how do you get them back to where their fathers and mothers were in the traditional Labour heartlands? Can you do that?

Probably slowly, I don't think there's a quick solution (and, if there is it won't be lasting). I think it has to start by putting Labour closer to where their fathers and mothers were - the Blairite move taking Labour away from being the champion of workers rights opened the door for the BNP and others to claim to be defending workers, even if they were "protecting British workers from foreigners" rather than from big business.

quote:
A passionate socialist communicator (like Nye Bevan) and others was not afraid to go for the high ground, point to collective aspirations and give principled answers. Passionate conviction carries weight.

My impression of Corbyn is that he's standing on the high ground, pointing to collective aspirations. He's very good at giving principled answers, and has the conviction. He lacks passion.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Chris Stiles:

quote:
Both Sturgeon and Corbyn were somewhat fringe figures in the debate - in Corbyn's case that reflected his own personal journey as well as the disarray of his media team.

Here in North East Scotland Sturgeon didn't seem to be a fringe figure at all. All four Scottish leaders campaigned for Remain (here's photos of them standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the issue).

Of the four, Sturgeon and Davidson were both frequently in the Scottish media as they campaigned for Remain.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

Of the four, Sturgeon and Davidson were both frequently in the Scottish media as they campaigned for Remain.

Though unless you want to posit the Scotland was much more Eurosceptic than the average Labour supporter, this is hardly a damning indictment of Corbyn.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

I would meekly and humbly suggest that Mr Cameron is to blame for our secession because he botched calling the referendum in the first place.
He called an "IN/OUT" referendum in which the electorate was called upon to make ONE decision on TWO different questions. "Do you want to leave the EU?" is not the same question as "do you want to stay in the EU?", because there is a variety of "buts" applicable to each question which the other doesn't address.
This also ignores electoral convention. which suggests that when voting for such significant constitutional change an absolute majority is required among the electorate. The referendum we have just witnessed has required only a majority among the poll. This decision has been carried with a vote of only 37% of the electorate, which is far from an absolute majority. Those of us bewailing the fact that we are among the 48% are actually among the 63%; 63% of the electorate did not vote for the UK to leave the EU.
Had Cameron instituted a referendum on one issue ("Should the UK leave the EU") with a yes/no answer requiring support of 50% of the electorate, we would not be looking into the abyss right now.
Having made that error in the first place, I don't at all blame him for resigning. Were he to stay, he'd be constantly criticized for the manner in which he conducts withdrawal negotiations that he doesn't want to conduct.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I would meekly and humbly suggest that Mr Cameron is to blame for our secession because he botched calling the referendum in the first place.
He called an "IN/OUT" referendum in which the electorate was called upon to make ONE decision on TWO different questions. "Do you want to leave the EU?" is not the same question as "do you want to stay in the EU?", because there is a variety of "buts" applicable to each question which the other doesn't address.
This also ignores electoral convention. which suggests that when voting for such significant constitutional change an absolute majority is required among the electorate. The referendum we have just witnessed has required only a majority among the poll. This decision has been carried with a vote of only 37% of the electorate, which is far from an absolute majority. Those of us bewailing the fact that we are among the 48% are actually among the 63%; 63% of the electorate did not vote for the UK to leave the EU.
Had Cameron instituted a referendum on one issue ("Should the UK leave the EU") with a yes/no answer requiring support of 50% of the electorate, we would not be looking into the abyss right now.

The irony of this was not lost of me, when the same government was trying to bring in such rules for union strike ballots.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My impression of Corbyn is that he's standing on the high ground, pointing to collective aspirations. He's very good at giving principled answers, and has the conviction. He lacks passion.

I suspect this is unfair. I don't think he actually does lack passion but he comes across poorly. And watching him, 'passionate' is not a word that immediately comes to mind.

Couple that with the very hostile media and a team not prepared to engage with the media and I think it's impossible to win. I understand and agree with most of Corbyn's positions, and when you watch him at PMQs (as I often do) he is right and often on the money. Cameron then responds by not answering the question, claiming to be a good leader (he isn't and never was), claiming a record of economic competence (ask any economist about that and they'll laugh) or with an insult. The following day the press then reports that Dave won. Or the News show a short clip conveying essentially the same message.

It's not enough be right.

I'm not sure how Corbyn can break through this. I'm not sure it's possible. I am sure it's necessary and I am sure that the PLP is not helping and that the public will not forgive them for that.

AFZ

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

Of the four, Sturgeon and Davidson were both frequently in the Scottish media as they campaigned for Remain.
Though unless you want to posit the Scotland was much more Eurosceptic than the average Labour supporter, this is hardly a damning indictment of Corbyn.

I wasn't trying to indict Corbyn, I was disagreeing with your previous post that Sturgeon was a fringe figure. She may have been presented as a fringe figure by the media south of the border, but she was actively campaigning, as were all four Scottish party leaders.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Is there a possibility of running a private online set of sources of proper reporting of the Labour party - Corbyn's party, that is? Youtube and so on, going viral? Bypassing Murdoch and the Mail?

Not sure how you'd get the abundant Mail readers to shift, though. Waitrose has huge piles in their free offer paper distribution. The graun has to be hunted for, though also free,

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

It's more than Murdoch and the Mail, though. Can you name any mainstream news source that isn't vigilantly anti-Corbin?

Don't agree with it, but how do you get round it?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Incidentally, I think there is a case for not following through the referendum on the simple basis that it would be utter political and economic suicide and would make England a 3rd world nation again.

Corbyn, IMO, is a superb political leader. I think he could weather the storms in his own party and lead them well. the problem is, he is from another era, and he is not media savvy (but he should have a team to help this), and he has not won the media to him. That is a problem in a era where media presence is far more important than, say, having policies or telling the truth. If the media love you (see the mouldy, syphilitic cockroach shit that is Nigel), the fact that you want to destroy Britain is irrelevant.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Corbyn, IMO, is a superb political leader. I think he could weather the storms in his own party and lead them well. the problem is, he is from another era, and he is not media savvy (but he should have a team to help this), and he has not won the media to him. That is a problem in a era where media presence is far more important than, say, having policies or telling the truth. If the media love you (see the mouldy, syphilitic cockroach shit that is Nigel), the fact that you want to destroy Britain is irrelevant.

I wouldn't call him superb, however I think he has played this referendum quite well; albeit that he didn't appear to look far enough ahead to see the knock-on effects on his political leadership.

The truth is that Corbyn was always aware of the dangers of neo-libs taking control after Brexit and was always suspicious of the neo-lib control of the EU. Those who are now undermining his authority in Labour are almost all Blairite neo-libs.

The party could well split. And that might not be a bad thing.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Serious question, mr cheesy - why do you think a split might not be a bad thing?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Serious question, mr cheesy - why do you think a split might not be a bad thing?

The post-Blair Labour party is an uneven coalition of people who barely talk to each other and agree on almost nothing. I think a split would at least mean everyone was being honest about what they believed in.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Thanks - agreed.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

So, the Conservatives split along pro/anti-EU lines. Labour along socialist/neo-liberal lines. The LibDems relaunch on a pro-EU ticket. That's five major English parties, six if UKIP maintain some form of reason to continue. It means we'll be in for a long period of coalition governments - which at least means any other stupid manifesto pledges by a party in government can be ditched as part of the price for coalition.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Or the left of the tories and the right of labour could defect to the tiberals. Then red and blue reslect on their new agenda and there's a general election where each reconstitued (slightly more cohesive) party campaigns on its manifesto in respnse to the refendum. Whoever wins get to either decide to stay in or negotiate brexit as per their manifesto..

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

If the Conservative party split along referendum lines, would a newly constituted party take up a coalition with Ukip? I know it's asking a question that's a bit pie in the sky, but I don't think I've read anywhere that the Conservatives at present have ruled out a Ukip coalition completely. I guess it would just look a little weird to be happy bedfellows in a campaign and then have to turn around later and say; we won't enter government with you.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

No one will touch Farage with a barge pole - as the history of Ukip shows he is a nightmare to work with - but their mps might just go back into the tory party. There's only one or two.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Presumably though, they have now a massive boost from this campaign and the fact that it won. Will that not translate to votes if a general election was called?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Maybe, but if that and the legalisation of handguns is all they stand for, why not back a brexit facing mainstram party ? They've probably more chance of actually holding power.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Plus there will be a subset of regrexits concerned about the break up of the UK.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I used to be a Liberal. But a party under that name composed of Blairite Labour and leftishy Tories wouldn't be the party I started with.

I want my parallel universe....

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If the Conservative party split along referendum lines, would a newly constituted party take up a coalition with Ukip?

Maybe, but there is a significant proportion of UKIP support that comes from former Labour supporters. I don't know if they would continue to support UKIP's other policies now.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

OK, Superb maybe a little too much. I do think he could have been one of the great labour leaders. Mainly because he stands by his principles, he doesn't get thrown here and there by divisions in the party, and he accepts that other might have other views - and tolerates them where appropriate.

But he won't be seen as that. He is at the wrong time. I feel really sorry for him in that, but I think it reflects a much deeper problem in modern politics.

I still hold onto some hope that someone will manage to find a way of saying "Thank you for your interest in leaving the EU. However, we won't be doing it, because it would be a monumental fuck-up, that would make electing Trump as US president seem like a rational and reasonable thing to do". Sadly, this process has simply splintered our political processes, and nobody seems able to do something that would actually make sense.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Plus there will be a subset of regrexits concerned about the break up of the UK.

Scotland breaking away from the UK was well on the cards anyway without this latest twist. We only managed to hold them in by the skin of their balls last time.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I still hold onto some hope that someone will manage to find a way of saying "Thank you for your interest in leaving the EU. However, we won't be doing it, because it would be a monumental fuck-up, that would make electing Trump as US president seem like a rational and reasonable thing to do". Sadly, this process has simply splintered our political processes, and nobody seems able to do something that would actually make sense.

I think it will be interesting to see if any tunes are changed after we have a day of trading on the markets on Monday.

If Sterling takes another massive hit (and the bounce is lower than last time) and the FTSE and other market indexes show an ongoing downward trend, then I think Tories are going to be under pressure to find a rapid way to stem the flow.

If that trend continued until Friday, I think the voices would be getting really loud and insistent and that Remain Tories might actually be having thoughts about what they might need to do next.

Which would be more-than-slightly ironic, but I think is likely to be the only thing that the Tories would respond to. They're so wedded to the neo-lib agenda that only a very weak sterling and a stock crash would make them sit up and do something.

In that circumstance, the natural and easy option is to tell the markets that things are cool and that we're not going to go through with this whole Brexit thing, so everyone can just calm down.

And I think the way to do that is with a General Election. This thing has gone beyond the usual party boundaries, so my bet is that the majority of generally Remain Tories may well tell the Brexit Tories to piss off over to UKIP if they want to continue with this nonsense.

Which would make a general election very interesting if it ended up being fought between two ex-labour and two ex-Tory parties. Fuck knows how that would work out.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Presumably though, they have now a massive boost from this campaign and the fact that it won. Will that not translate to votes if a general election was called?

Why? UKIP is a single-issue coalition. They've now "won". If we go through with Brexit, there's no reason for them to exist at the next election, and no principles to hold them together.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Which would make a general election very interesting if it ended up being fought between two ex-labour and two ex-Tory parties. Fuck knows how that would work out.

All the parties understand the way that elections work, so they're going to try to end up with a majority of their old party on their side, and just purge a few of the extremists. Of course, each side of the party thinks that the other side are extreme...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why? UKIP is a single-issue coalition. They've now "won". If we go through with Brexit, there's no reason for them to exist at the next election, and no principles to hold them together.

Because what UKIP want and what UKIP say they want are two different things.

In fact leaving the EU is only the means-to-an-end. They're actually dominated by extremely right-wing bordering on openly racist Tories who are only really interested in an agenda of cutting red tape and reducing costs and regulations of industry.

They're like the extreme Tories of the Redwood kind, but without the manners. In the post-referendum euphoria, the gloves are coming off because they're drunk on their "win" and can see the ultimate goal in sight.

To think that they are only a "single issue" party is to misunderstand the whole reason for their existence.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat:

quote:
OK, Superb maybe a little too much. I do think he could have been one of the great labour leaders. Mainly because he stands by his principles, he doesn't get thrown here and there by divisions in the party, and he accepts that other might have other views - and tolerates them where appropriate.

As things stand there are really two possibilities. Either he favoured Brexit but didn't have the balls to admit it and campaigned feebly, in which case he was disingenuous or he opposed Brexit and campaigned feebly in which case he was feeble. In either case I think the words of Blessed Leo Amery (PBUH) are appropriate here: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
All the parties understand the way that elections work, so they're going to try to end up with a majority of their old party on their side, and just purge a few of the extremists. Of course, each side of the party thinks that the other side are extreme...

Mmm. I'm not sure about that. The old allegiances are coming apart and I think there are fractures in both the Tories and Labour which means that there are people who think it is better to be apart than patch over differences which can no longer be hidden.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

This also ignores electoral convention. which suggests that when voting for such significant constitutional change an absolute majority is required among the electorate. The referendum we have just witnessed has required only a majority among the poll. This decision has been carried with a vote of only 37% of the electorate, which is far from an absolute majority. Those of us bewailing the fact that we are among the 48% are actually among the 63%; 63% of the electorate did not vote for the UK to leave the EU.
Had Cameron instituted a referendum on one issue ("Should the UK leave the EU") with a yes/no answer requiring support of 50% of the electorate, we would not be looking into the abyss right now.

I have no time for this form of vote counting, which is almost invariably used to demonstrate the failure of the opposite side of a particular argument to get an absolute majority. But one corollary of counting votes this way would be to say that any constituency/country with a turn-out of under 50% would clear actually not want a parliament or government, and thus the constituency seat should not be occupied, or the country should be run without a government. Of course, that would be ludicrous. So the Brexit referendum result must stand as it is. Those who abstained have entrusted the decision to those who voted, however foolish this may be.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:

I have no time for this form of vote counting, which is almost invariably used to demonstrate the failure of the opposite side of a particular argument to get an absolute majority.

Presumably in this case you strongly oppose the governments attempts to impose the 50% rule on trade union ballots.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If people can't be bothered to turn up at a Polling Station, or register for a postal vote if they know they'll be away from home, then they have no leg to stand on when it comes to questioning the outcome of a vote. In particular I'm thinking of all those luvvies who were at Glastonbury and the like: how many of them bothered to get a postal vote? If you don't feel able to vote for any party/issue, then spoil your ballot paper: at least the fact that you turned up will be registered.

The UK needs compulsory voting, plus the inclusion of a box on all ballot papers for none of the above.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

L'organist:

quote:
In particular I'm thinking of all those luvvies who were at Glastonbury and the like: how many of them bothered to get a postal vote?

Quite a few of them, apparently.

You can't blame the 16 and 17 year olds for not voting; they weren't allowed to. Just as well, from the Brexiteers' point of view, as they might have swung it back the other way. I think they are entitled to an opinion, as they are going to be living with the consequences of this for longer than anyone who cast a vote last week....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was musing about Cameron, who in one way, is a very smooth operator. I saw him on TV in one of those televised Q and A, and his articulacy is amazing.

Yet now his name will be linked with this dog's breakfast for ever. It's puzzling. Maybe a suicide wish? I don't mean physical suicide. Maybe being tired of it all.

Also he is quite a gambler. It will be interesting in the future to see some analysis of what he did.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was musing about Cameron, who in one way, is a very smooth operator. I saw him on TV in one of those televised Q and A, and his articulacy is amazing.

And you nail a very large problem with the political process. It isn't what you say, but how you say it.
Politicians everywhere are judged, and appointed/elected, by their presentation skill more than the content of that presentation.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet now his name will be linked with this dog's breakfast for ever. It's puzzling.

Fundamentally, he's been strong on short-term tactics but either is bad at or has never bothered with long-term strategy. Each of his short-term tactical victories has been successively more pyrrhic, solving each problem at the cost of creating a larger problem down the line.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yup, exactly so.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

He talks the talk, but once you realise he is lying and manipulating, it comes over very differently. He is like any other snake-oil seller - talking it up big, but there is nothing behind it all. Then denying that he meant what everyone assumed that he meant.

I have seen manipulators like this before (yes, in the church), and they are dangerous and damaging.

He is also entitled, expecting that everything he wants will be given him. I suspect that this referendum has rather thrown him.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0