Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

Has the system for electing a Tory leader changed since last time?

 

Last time, Tory MPs had to vote for the 2 candidates to be put to the membership. The only reason that it didn't go to the members was because Leadsom (selected with May) pulled out, didn't she?

I've not heard it's changed but I don't know for sure. Technically it could still be decided by the MPs but I don't think the membership would stand for it.

[RumbleFox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm not calling you a bore and I didn't mean to imply that, but that is the general tone of this thread lately.

 

If people like JRM then they're entitled to. Not all us dislike people because they're posh.

I have not said no one is entitled to like him, I simply asked what it was about him people liked as I personally cannot see it.  I was trying to understand opposing viewpoints, not belittle them.  Moreover, I do no dislike him because he is posh, I am worried by his politics (not what he says or postures but his actual, factual voting record) and wondered if I was missing something so came on here to see if anyone could explain why he might be a decent person to vote for.  So far you have not done that but I appreciate the feedback and your right to like him.

Edited 5 February 2018 by RumbleFox

[Webbo]

Just now, RumbleFox said:

I have not said no one is entitled to like him, I simply asked what it was about him people liked as I personally cannot see it.  I was trying to understand opposing viewpoints, not belittle them.  Moreover, I do no dislike him because he is posh, I am worried by his politics (not what he says or postures but his actual, factual voting record) and wondered if I was missing something so came on here to see if anyone could explain why he might be a decent person to vote for.  SO far you have not done that but I appreciate the feedback and your right to like him.

We live in a democracy, if you don't like him you can vote against him. He wouldn't be my choice of leader but I wouldn't have a problem voting for him if he was.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I've not heard it's changed but I don't know for sure. Technically it could still be decided by the MPs but I don't think the membership would stand for it.

 

I'm not suggesting that the MPs would stitch it up to avoid a membership election (though they might, I suppose, in the unlikely even that Hard Brexiteers and Remainers could agree on another MOR leader).

 

I was thinking more that the 2 candidates put to the members might not include a clear supporter of Hard Brexit, as Tory MPs are not as pro-Hard Brexit as Tory members.

My guess is that a Hard Brexit candidate WOULD be one of the two, but not guaranteed....

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not suggesting that the MPs would stitch it up to avoid a membership election (though they might, I suppose, in the unlikely even that Hard Brexiteers and Remainers could agree on another MOR leader).

 

I was thinking more that the 2 candidates put to the members might not include a clear supporter of Hard Brexit, as Tory MPs are not as pro-Hard Brexit as Tory members.

My guess is that a Hard Brexit candidate WOULD be one of the two, but not guaranteed....

I totally agree Alf it’s not inconceivable at all that we would end up with 2 pro remain candidates in the final two. I think it would take unity from the brexiteers to get in the final two. Ie two of Gove, JRM or Boris to not stand. I don’t see a stitch up but the Parliamentary support in the Tory party for Brexit is thin and they can’t divide the vote to succeed, and they need to topple May soon.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

I have not said no one is entitled to like him, I simply asked what it was about him people liked as I personally cannot see it.  I was trying to understand opposing viewpoints, not belittle them.  Moreover, I do no dislike him because he is posh, I am worried by his politics (not what he says or postures but his actual, factual voting record) and wondered if I was missing something so came on here to see if anyone could explain why he might be a decent person to vote for.  So far you have not done that but I appreciate the feedback and your right to like him.

It's when somebody new comes on and tries to be reasonable that we see just how unreasonable our regular posters are.

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I totally agree Alf it’s not inconceivable at all that we would end up with 2 pro remain candidates in the final two. I think it would take unity from the brexiteers to get in the final two. Ie two of Gove, JRM or Boris to not stand. I don’t see a stitch up but the Parliamentary support in the Tory party for Brexit is thin and they can’t divide the vote to succeed, and they need to topple May soon.

 

I doubt that we'd end up with 2 overtly Remainer candidates, but certainly at least 1 centrist like May trying to satisfy both wings and maintain unity (someone like Hunt?), maybe seeking to manoeuvre towards a Soft Brexit deal.

Despite all the noise from both wings, my understanding is that both the Hard Brexit lot and the Remainers are minority groupings in the parliamentary party - so which way do the silent majority go? 

 

If it provides any clues, here's the last leadership election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2016

- 199 MPs supported candidates who'd campaigned for Remain (May + Crabb)

- 130 MPs supported candidates who'd campaigned for Leave (Leadsom + Gove + Fox)

We can't draw simplistic conclusions from that as May was only a mild Remainer and Boris wasn't a candidate, plus there's been an election since then.

But certainly shows that the Hard Brexiteers aren't guaranteed a place in the last 2.

As you say, they'll probably need to agree on a single candidate....rumours are that it would be Boris, but has he blotted his copybook with MPs after some of his gaffes?

Edited 5 February 2018 by Alf Bentley

[RumbleFox]

Just now, toddybad said:

It's when somebody new comes on and tries to be reasonable that we see just how unreasonable our regular posters are.

Och, I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, reasonableness is not something you see a lot of on online forums unfortunately so I understand why people may initially react badly but I am going to try my very best to stay reasonable, to always listen and to admit when I am wrong or change my mind when/where appropriate.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I totally agree Alf it’s not inconceivable at all that we would end up with 2 pro remain candidates in the final two. I think it would take unity from the brexiteers to get in the final two. Ie two of Gove, JRM or Boris to not stand. I don’t see a stitch up but the Parliamentary support in the Tory party for Brexit is thin and they can’t divide the vote to succeed, and they need to topple May soon.

That's a lot of talk of a dream team of Boris as pm, gove as deputy and Rees-mogg as chancellor. Quite how Boris as pm could ever be considered to be a dream I've no idea though. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I doubt that we'd end up with 2 overtly Remainer candidates, but certainly at least 1 centrist like May trying to satisfy both wings and maintain unity (someone like Hunt?), maybe seeking to manoeuvre towards a Soft Brexit deal.

Despite all the noise from both wings, my understanding is that both the Hard Brexit lot and the Remainers are minority groupings in the parliamentary party - so which way do the silent majority go? 

 

If it provides any clues, here's the last leadership election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2016

- 199 MPs supported candidates who'd campaigned for Remain (May + Crabb)

- 130 MPs supported candidates who'd campaigned for Leave (Leadsom + Gove + Fox)

We can't draw simplistic conclusions from that as May was only a mild Remainer and Boris wasn't a candidate, plus there's been an election since then.

But certainly shows that the Hard Brexiteers aren't guaranteed a place in the last 2.

As you say, they'll probably need to agree on a single candidate....rumours are that it would be Boris, but has he blotted his copybook with MPs after some of his gaffes?

I know he is deeply loathed by some but I think Gove has the strongest case tbh. He has been excellent since his return to the cabinet and unlike Boris quietly gone about his business.

[Innovindil]

58 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Well, two things here, firstly could you please quote the part of my post where I advocated voting Labour?

 

Secondly.....

 

He has voted consistently AGAINST:

Gay Marriage

Gay Equal Rights

Human Rights

Increasing Welfare

Long Term disability pay

Spending money to create jobs for young people

 

He has also voted FOR:

Reducing Housing Benefits

A reduction in Welfare Benefits

 

I wont go on as I am being a bit boring but his voting record is an interesting read.....

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/votes

 

Are the above things you generally agree with?

 

 

Not sure if I'd vote for him or not tbh, he has a pretty chalk and cheese voting history, I guess it would depend on the manifesto they were running with. 

 

While I don't agree with his voting on those subjects you posted, they wouldn't necessarily mean I wouldn't vote for him, as in the end, none of those things really effect me, and there are others where he has voted the way I would, and they do effect me. 

 

Hard to predict really. 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's when somebody new comes on and tries to be reasonable that we see just how unreasonable our regular posters are.

You’ve hardened us up Toddy

 

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I know he is deeply loathed by some but I think Gove has the strongest case tbh. He has been excellent since his return to the cabinet and unlike Boris quietly gone about his business.

 

Ignoring policy, Gove certainly seems the most personally capable politician among them - and is popular with party members, according to the chart that Matt posted recently.

How popular he is with MPs now I've no idea, but he didn't excel in the last leadership vote, finishing behind Leadsom (though maybe the Right wanted a female candidate to stand against May).

I cannot imagine Gove winning over many swing voters in a general election, though. Boris' entertaining personality makes him a better bet there......bit of a problem there, if different candidates appeal to MPs and to electorate (like Corbyn with MPs and members).

Edited 5 February 2018 by Alf Bentley

[DJ Barry Hammond]

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Ignoring policy, Gove certainly seems the most personally capable politician among them - and is popular with party members, according to the chart that Matt posted recently.

How popular he is with MPs now I've no idea, but he didn't excel in the last leadership vote, finishing behind Leadsom (though maybe the Right wanted a female candidate to stand against May).

I cannot imagine Gove winning over many swing voters in a general election, though. Boris' entertaining personality makes him a better bet there......bit of a problem there, if different candidates appeal to MPs and to electorate (like Corbyn with MPs and members).

 

Gove did badly last time because he’d been saying he wasn’t going to run during the referendum campaign. Had then teamed up with Boris initially, only to pull away and go for it on his own based on the urging of his wife (details of which were leaked to the press).

 

It made him look a complete scoundrel - and although the Conservative party would normally happily endorse a scoundrel, they’d prefer that it’s not publically known before they’re elected leader. 

 

All that said... He certainly stands a better chance this time around. He may even like the prospect of running up against JRM as that could make him seem less extreme!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, RumbleFox said:

Well, two things here, firstly could you please quote the part of my post where I advocated voting Labour?

 

Secondly.....

 

He has voted consistently AGAINST:

Gay Marriage

Gay Equal Rights

Human Rights

Increasing Welfare

Long Term disability pay

Spending money to create jobs for young people

 

He has also voted FOR:

Reducing Housing Benefits

A reduction in Welfare Benefits

 

I wont go on as I am being a bit boring but his voting record is an interesting read.....

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset/votes

 

Are the above things you generally agree with?

 

 

 

Tricky one - I would assume JRM has staunchly voted along party lines on those matters, because I’m sure he holds loyalty to ones party in high regard.

 

But equally, I’m pretty sure he’s of old style Tory values as well. He certainly likes velom (the cow skin paper they write laws on).

 

However, I think it would be too early for anyone to have a definitive view on positions JRM would take as a leader. Yes, decisions will be governed by personal positions on issues in some areas, but leadership also requires you to be pragmatic and listen to the views of party and country (sadly in that order) to form overall policy. 

 

The huge downside with JRM on one level is he’s never held office - which would make the jump to PM quite steep. But then again some could see that as a plus, not a negative. 

 

That he’s seriously in the discussion does point to one thing - the Conservatives are short on viable leadership candidate right now.

 

 

And finally, one question for you - why are you voting Labour ? !

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not suggesting that the MPs would stitch it up to avoid a membership election (though they might, I suppose, in the unlikely even that Hard Brexiteers and Remainers could agree on another MOR leader).

 

I was thinking more that the 2 candidates put to the members might not include a clear supporter of Hard Brexit, as Tory MPs are not as pro-Hard Brexit as Tory members.

My guess is that a Hard Brexit candidate WOULD be one of the two, but not guaranteed....

 

I’d be suprised if there was another leadership election prior to Brexit “completing”. Something would have to go catastrophicly wrong for May or she’d need to resign, because there really isn’t time in the process for another significant delay.

 

Plus no potential leader will want to pick up the baton now. It’s a mess, but one that’s largely been pre-made.

 

More likely in my mind... we’re heading for ‘no-deal’ and May is forced to resign then.

 

And in a way, i’m more comfortable with that than a soft Brexit, because at least we’d been able to strike up our own trade deals which was one of the main points of voting Leave. If you don’t have that, what was the point in Brexit? In this scenario we could also give it 5-10 years, after some successfully negotiated non EU trade deals and then go back to the EU and ask “how do you like us now?”

 

I see soft Brexit as actually a bit shite and something remainers should probably oppose as well.

[RumbleFox]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Not sure if I'd vote for him or not tbh, he has a pretty chalk and cheese voting history, I guess it would depend on the manifesto they were running with. 

 

While I don't agree with his voting on those subjects you posted, they wouldn't necessarily mean I wouldn't vote for him, as in the end, none of those things really effect me, and there are others where he has voted the way I would, and they do effect me. 

 

Hard to predict really. 

Thanks for your feedback.   One quick question, do you think an attitude of only voting for things which affect you personally may not be the most helpful to a happy, healthy society?  Not having a dig at you at all I just disagree as I like to think I would sometimes vote for things which may even affect me negatively if they were, for want of a better phrase, "for the greater good"?

[RumbleFox]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Tricky one - I would assume JRM has staunchly voted along party lines on those matters, because I’m sure he holds loyalty to ones party in high regard.

 

But equally, I’m pretty sure he’s of old style Tory values as well. He certainly likes velom (the cow skin paper they write laws on).

 

However, I think it would be too early for anyone to have a definitive view on positions JRM would take as a leader. Yes, decisions will be governed by personal positions on issues in some areas, but leadership also requires you to be pragmatic and listen to the views of party and country (sadly in that order) to form overall policy. 

 

The huge downside with JRM on one level is he’s never held office - which would make the jump to PM quite steep. But then again some could see that as a plus, not a negative. 

 

That he’s seriously in the discussion does point to one thing - the Conservatives are short on viable leadership candidate right now.

 

 

And finally, one question for you - why are you voting Labour ? !

 

Haha, did I forget to mention?

 

Thanks, enjoyed reading you post. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

Thanks for your feedback.   One quick question, do you think an attitude of only voting for things which affect you personally may not be the most helpful to a happy, healthy society?  Not having a dig at you at all I just disagree as I like to think I would sometimes vote for things which may even affect me negatively if they were, for want of a better phrase, "for the greater good"?

If there's one person on here that would gladly see everybody else perish if he came out better off it's innovindil.

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

If there's one person on here that would gladly see everybody else perish if he came out better off it's innovindil.

I am new and learning. X

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I’d be suprised if there was another leadership election prior to Brexit “completing”. Something would have to go catastrophicly wrong for May or she’d need to resign, because there really isn’t time in the process for another significant delay.

 

Plus no potential leader will want to pick up the baton now. It’s a mess, but one that’s largely been pre-made.

 

More likely in my mind... we’re heading for ‘no-deal’ and May is forced to resign then.

 

And in a way, i’m more comfortable with that than a soft Brexit, because at least we’d been able to strike up our own trade deals which was one of the main points of voting Leave. If you don’t have that, what was the point in Brexit? In this scenario we could also give it 5-10 years, after some successfully negotiated non EU trade deals and then go back to the EU and ask “how do you like us now?”

 

I see soft Brexit as actually a bit shite and something remainers should probably oppose as well.

 

Our Brexit destination might become apparent within 2 months (unless there's another fudge). Hasn't the EU said that any deal on the transition period and planned negotiations on an EU/UK trade deal will depend on the UK giving a clear idea of its intended destination? May is still promoting a "have cake and eat it" policy so as to maintain party unity: strong national control, no single market or customs union, no free movement, the freedom to do external trade deals....and yet a "deep and special partnership" with the EU, including minimal barriers to trade. 

 

Will the EU not make May choose between a close relationship/frictionless trade and "taking back control"? I definitely cannot see them agreeing to both during the trade talks, so do you think they'd agree to a transition period and trade talks without the UK making a choice between the two? If so, the EU would be going back on what it has said...and so far it has largely been the UK that has been doing that.

 

If May is forced to jump off the fence in the next 2 months, that could be the crisis that triggers a leadership contest. Hard Brexiteers wouldn't accept a capitulation on issues of "national control" and Tory Remainers wouldn't accept an arm's-length relationship and significant barriers to trade, would they? I suppose the negotiations over the transition period might be inconclusive and be extended, but that could only be a short-term solution as it would eat into time for negotiations on a trade deal.

 

I disagree with your preference for "No Deal" over Soft Brexit. I agree that Soft Brexit is a "bit shite", but still see it as better than "disastrously shite", which is how I see No Deal/Hard Brexit! I'd prefer to Remain, but that won't be an option unless there's a real sea-change in public opinion. Ironically, part of the reason that is unlikely is because the economies of EU, USA and others are on the up, which will help us avoid the worst effects of impending Brexit in the short-term. Yes, with No Deal we could do our own trade deals, but on what terms would we get such trade deals as quickly as we need them? Through social/employment deregulation and generous terms attractive to foreign countries and global business, basically...shafting the British public in order to benefit big business, great!

 

This all comes at a time when the UK is creaking at the seams socioeconomically: still significant debt/deficit, low growth, low productivity, stagnant or falling living standards, public services in crisis, an aging population.... To compete much better than now in global markets (an absolute requirement as we'd lose some of EU trade), at least in the short-term we'd have to accept lower corporate tax revenues (leaving even less for public services unless we increase debt or tax), lower pay, even more "flexible" employment conditions, plus the risk of burgeoning social problems as large sections of the population struggled to get by on low incomes, in insecure employment and relying on ever more cash-strapped public services. 

 

Maybe in the medium-term, we might achieve great success as "Global Britain" (though the trade record of British business doesn't encourage that hope)....but in the medium-term we're all dead, to adapt a cliche. Maybe personal circumstances affect how open people are to such a gamble in the hope of great improvement in 10-20 years time? I'm 55, am not rich, have had health issues (though fine at the moment) and have a teenage daughter likely to be entering the job market within 10 years. The prospect of a lost decade or two with low incomes, lack of job opportunities and inadequate NHS funding is one that scares me, frankly - and I don't scare easily. Hence why I prefer a deal that's "a bit shite" to something even worse, accepted in the hope of something better a long way down the line...  

 

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Thanks for your feedback.   One quick question, do you think an attitude of only voting for things which affect you personally may not be the most helpful to a happy, healthy society?  Not having a dig at you at all I just disagree as I like to think I would sometimes vote for things which may even affect me negatively if they were, for want of a better phrase, "for the greater good"?

You seem to be assuming that some people aren't voting for the greater good?

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Thanks for your feedback.   One quick question, do you think an attitude of only voting for things which affect you personally may not be the most helpful to a happy, healthy society?  Not having a dig at you at all I just disagree as I like to think I would sometimes vote for things which may even affect me negatively if they were, for want of a better phrase, "for the greater good"?

 

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If there's one person on here that would gladly see everybody else perish if he came out better off it's innovindil.

Gladly? Bit harsh. Indifferently? Sure. 

 

But as an overall answer I'd say if I was given a vote on the options, I'd quite happily vote for a better society, I don't have anything against homosexuals or disabled people in the slightest, but that doesn't mean I would close the door on a pm candidate that could benefit me because they held different views on them. 

 

Simply put, my interests are me, my girlfriend, my family and my friends, beyond that, I don't particularly have enough care to stretch. 

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You seem to be assuming that some people aren't voting for the greater good?

No, I really don't, you seem to be putting words into my mouth on every occasion and it is beginning to confuse me.  I was asking a direct question relating directly to the words which another poster wrote (ie that he would not be put off voting as certain things do not affect him).  At no point have I made assumptions about anyone else, nor in fact actually directly accused him of it, more I have asked him to clarify.  I am genuinely confused as to what you are saying.  Thanks though. X

[RumbleFox]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

 

Gladly? Bit harsh. Indifferently? Sure. 

 

But as an overall answer I'd say if I was given a vote on the options, I'd quite happily vote for a better society, I don't have anything against homosexuals or disabled people in the slightest, but that doesn't mean I would close the door on a pm candidate that could benefit me because they held different views on them. 

 

Simply put, my interests are me, my girlfriend, my family and my friends, beyond that, I don't particularly have enough care to stretch. 

Thanks for your response.  I see.  But is there an argument that we should care a bit more, even if it doesn't affect you?  To try and explain using a rather glib example, what if their voting record was against Leicester fans and everyone else just voted for them saying "well I am not a Leicester fan", would you not feel that they were being slightly unfair/selfish?  Again, not having a go just curious.

Edited 5 February 2018 by RumbleFox