Brexit!

[Guest MattP]

Said it before but I'm genuinely convinced some of this lot actually convinced themselves they won the last election. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

Rumours of a Tories-Brexit pact electoral pact where they would put Boris deal v No Deal to the electorate afterwards. 

 

That's a pretty good idea I have to say and would surely unite the leave vote. 

 

BP steps aside in Tory marginals - Tory step aside in Midland/Northern seats that they can't win.

 

I thought we'd already voted for Brexit, that Brexit is Brexit and so we don't need another referendum? 

 

Now, you want a referendum - and one that includes no option for Remain or for any sort of Soft Brexit. How do you think 50%+ of the population will react to that?

 

Then, there's the proposed electoral pact....

- The Tories would presumably commit to this referendum even though they've negotiated a deal....and would call a Boris Deal v. No Deal referendum even if they won a landslide? 

- Brexit Party would campaign for your referendum - and for No Deal, while the Tories stood aside in seats they could win, for a party on 11-14% in the polls? And all the Tory voters in those seats would happily vote for Farage's No Deal agenda, along with large numbers of Labour Leave supporters? 

 

I can only think that some of the more fanatical Brexiteer zealots have worked themselves into such a frenzy of frustration, they've gone completely mad!   

[Finnaldo]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Can you imagine this place if boris won a majority and the leader of the opposition was Nigel Farage. I know it’s pure fantasy but I can’t get my head around anyone voting labour anymore.

 

Two right-wing parties as the government and opposition would be as catastrophic as having Labour and Respect as the main two parties. 

 

I don't really expect you to get your head round voting Labour during the most polarised and dissonant period in British politics for a long time. I'll never get how Boris as Prime Minister is considered anything less than an embarrassment for the country, but I have no stakes in Brexit so i don't really expect to 'get' it.

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought we'd already voted for Brexit, that Brexit is Brexit and so we don't need another referendum? 

 

Now, you want a referendum - and one that includes no option for Remain or for any sort of Soft Brexit. How do you think 50%+ of the population will react to that?

 

Then, there's the proposed electoral pact....

- The Tories would presumably commit to this referendum even though they've negotiated a deal....and would call a Boris Deal v. No Deal referendum even if they won a landslide? 

- Brexit Party would campaign for your referendum - and for No Deal, while the Tories stood aside in seats they could win, for a party on 11-14% in the polls? And all the Tory voters in those seats would happily vote for Farage's No Deal agenda, along with large numbers of Labour Leave supporters? 

 

I can only think that some of the more fanatical Brexiteer zealots have worked themselves into such a frenzy of frustration, they've gone completely mad!   

I don't want a referendum, I want a GE or the deal Boris has brought back to the house to pass unamended.

 

I just said it was good idea in uniting the leave vote.

 

Personally I think the Tories will be able to win a majority anyway without it as surely barely a single leave voter is going to be voting Labour now.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Two right-wing parties as the government and opposition would be as catastrophic as having Labour and Respect as the main two parties. 

Which you may soon be able to get in the West Midlands.

 

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/salma-yaqoob-shortlisted-for-labours-west-midlands-mayoral-selection/

 

A real clarion call for the Jewish vote

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Rumours of a Tories-Brexit pact electoral pact where they would put Boris deal v No Deal to the electorate afterwards. 

 

That's a pretty good idea I have to say and would surely unite the leave vote. 

 

BP steps aside in Tory marginals - Tory step aside in Midland/Northern seats that they can't win.

 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't want a referendum, I want a GE or the deal Boris has brought back to the house to pass unamended.

 

I just said it was good idea in uniting the leave vote.

 

Personally I think the Tories will be able to win a majority anyway without it as surely barely a single leave voter is going to be voting Labour now.

 

You've completely confused me now. If you're looking at an electoral pact and then putting "Boris deal v. No Deal to the electorate afterwards", how are you going to do it, except via a referendum?

 

Or do you mean that there'd be an electoral pact, Tories would campaign for Boris Deal & Brexit Party for No Deal, and sort it out in parliament afterwards, if there was a Tory-Brexit Party majority but no Tory majority?

 

I can see the logic in some sort of pact to unite the Leave vote. But I'm not sure it's possible if the 2 parties support different forms of Brexit.....and I'm not sure Tory & Labour Leave voters will switch to Farage en masse in North/Midlands.

Yes, I know lots did in the Euro elections, as they did to UKIP before, but general elections are viewed differently by many voters.....UKIP never broke through in a general election (only a couple of by-elections & Carswell re-elected as a popular sitting MP?)

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Which you may soon be able to get in the West Midlands.

 

https://labourlist.org/2019/10/salma-yaqoob-shortlisted-for-labours-west-midlands-mayoral-selection/

 

A real clarion call for the Jewish vote

 

Am I reading this wrong or is that not the Labour West Midland Mayoral candidate shortlist? I'm not sure what that has to do with Strokes' point or mine on the main two parties in Parliament  

 

A cvnt being shortlisted as a candidate being backed by other cvnts affiliated with said party, I'm not really shocked.

[thursday_next]

Matt P - I don't think Boris will take it up too - nevertheless, it's out there, and it's going to be another blow to Remainers, who have the unenviable task of following Boris, trying to predict what he will do next and immediately putting the worse-case scenario on his plans 'because you can't trust Boris'. It doesn't look good for the electorate, particularly when they see BJ sorting out the Conservative Party (when everybody predicted that the Tories would just blow themselves apart), persuading the EU to open the Withdrawal Agreement again when everybody thought he couldn't do that, and most people (including me) thought that he was just winding the clock down, actually getting the bill passed by Parliament, and losing his temper when he lost the subsequent vote, pulling the bill (which was exactly the right thing to do) and appealing to the general public to support him in a forthcoming General Election.

 

The TV pundits all think he's broken his promise to the electorate by not getting Brexit done by 31 Oct. We will see whether the electorate agrees with them. I don't think they will. If Labour and the SNP try and hold out for when times are better that would be a really bad mistake. Boris is getting things done whereas the other parties are just going round in circles criticising him - this did look like a strength when the Conservative party was at it's weakest point, but now it isn't.

 

They can fall back to the Good Friday agreement now that no-deal is rather receding as a danger, but I don't think that's doing them any good. Northern Ireland was bound to get shafted anyway, I think the majority of the electorate see that (although not the pundits waffling to the TV screens who are quite simply behind the times). 

 

I don't think the majority of the electorate care a toss about Dominic Cummings. A well-run party needs an enforcer, and I think the people would generally agree that the more unpleasant person the better, particularly as MP's have a tendency to say whatever comes in their heads and they need to be scared of someone.

 

It's a pity that those people on the Remainer side didn't put forward a more honest case for Europe, instead of pointing out how difficult it would be to leave, and posting lots and lots of statistics (for each other) judging how bad it was going to be if we tried to. Statistics don't win elections. I rather think they tried to do this but saw a considerable amount of electoral apathy at the thought of being ruled by Brussels, so they tried to steer clear of that course. It may come back to haunt them.     

[Guest MattP]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

You've completely confused me now. If you're looking at an electoral pact and then putting "Boris deal v. No Deal to the electorate afterwards", how are you going to do it, except via a referendum?

 

Or do you mean that there'd be an electoral pact, Tories would campaign for Boris Deal & Brexit Party for No Deal, and sort it out in parliament afterwards, if there was a Tory-Brexit Party majority but no Tory majority?

 

I can see the logic in some sort of pact to unite the Leave vote. But I'm not sure it's possible if the 2 parties support different forms of Brexit.....and I'm not sure Tory & Labour Leave voters will switch to Farage en masse in North/Midlands.

Yes, I know lots did in the Euro elections, as they did to UKIP before, but general elections are viewed differently by many voters.....UKIP never broke through in a general election (only a couple of by-elections & Carswell re-elected as a popular sitting MP?)

I don't want a pact with the Brexit Party - I said it was a good idea though if they needed to unite the leave vote, not that I wanted it.

 

At this point in time polls are starting to show a Tory majority anyway, so it wouldn't be necessary. 

[Mike Oxlong]

From PMQs it would appear that Boris would prefer to leave with no deal at the end of this month rather than his deal at the end of next month 

[Brizzle Fox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Said it before but I'm genuinely convinced some of this lot actually convinced themselves they won the last election. 

 

 

This guy is a total muppet. I swear he's never off the TV either. He's the Labour version of James 'inappropriately named' Cleverly. 

 

It's almost like both parties are enforcing some sort of weird equal opportunity scheme for idiots that forces them to put these ****wits on the telly at least once a day. 

[stripeyfox]

26 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

This guy is a total muppet. I swear he's never off the TV either. He's the Labour version of James 'inappropriately named' Cleverly. 

 

It's almost like both parties are enforcing some sort of weird equal opportunity scheme for idiots that forces them to put these ****wits on the telly at least once a day. 

The "FoxesTalk" cabinet that was posted here a few weeks ago would be a huge improvement on these muppets

 

Was it Alf for PM?

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

The "FoxesTalk" cabinet that was posted here a few weeks ago would be a huge improvement on these muppets

 

Was it Alf for PM?

 

Aye, and Matt as deputy IIRC.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I don't want a pact with the Brexit Party - I said it was a good idea though if they needed to unite the leave vote, not that I wanted it.

 

At this point in time polls are starting to show a Tory majority anyway, so it wouldn't be necessary. 

 

There's an obvious logic to such a pact, even if the parties would presumably be campaigning for different forms of Brexit (Boris Deal & No Deal, respectively). The Tory poll lead could evaporate if they openly embraced No Deal.

 

But how would such a pact work? I've heard people suggest that the Brexit Party should be given a free run in Labour Leave seats. But have a look at the Tory target seats:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative

 

Almost all the Tory target seats are Labour Leave seats in the North/Midlands. They might pick up a handful of seats in the South due to Lab voters switching to the LDs (Kensington, Canterbury, Battersea), but those gains would almost certainly be outnumbered by losses to the SNP in Scotland & Lib Dems in southern Remain seats. So, if the Tories did a pact like that, they could conceivably end up with fewer seats than now & dependent on the Brexit Party (if the strategy worked in the North).

 

I suppose the two parties could carve the target seats up between them, but as a national party of govt, the Tories would struggle to explain not standing in a number of seats - even if their voters were prepared to switch en masse to Farage.

Maybe such a carve-up of target seats between the two could work with "paper candidates" for the Tories who were on the ballot paper but didn't campaign at all in certain constituencies....that would still hand ammunition to Opposition parties & piss off a lot of their own Tory voters, though.

 

There's a dilemma for Farage here, I think. Is he prepared to effectively wind down the Brexit Party and trust Johnson to deliver a Brexit to suit him and his supporters?

If not, and if he wants to exert any influence, his party surely has to stand and campaign properly in at least some of the seats where they stand a chance.......which are largely the seats that the Tories also need to win.

 

Polls showing that the Tories might win a majority without help also make it harder for them to justify such a pact. What would Tory voters and activists in Dudley, Barrow, Stockton or wherever think if, having only lost narrowly last time, their party didn't stand a candidate and asked their voters to elect a Brexit Party MP....potentially for 5 years?

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

.and I'm not sure Tory & Labour Leave voters will switch to Farage en masse in North/Midlands.

Who gives a hoot. An electoral pact wouldn't be about winning seats for the Brexit party, it will be about gaining tory seats where the Brexit split vote could make the difference. And all at the low cost of the tories giving up seats they can't win anyways. With labour and lib dems looking like they're aiming for the same thing, it could be more than enough for a tory majority. 

[Alf Bentley]

On BBC News, they said that Johnson has met Corbyn to discuss a timetable for the Brexit bill - without any resolution so far. Though that's unsurprising when they don't even know what the extension, if any, will be.

 

Apparently, Ken Clarke also asked him to agree a timetable - and he didn't dismiss the idea.

 

That makes better tactical sense from the Tory perspective, surely? Voters might be drifting in his direction just now, but I'm not sure they'd understand if his reaction to winning a vote on his Brexit deal is to use the extension to pull the legislation and seek an election. Parliament might be getting a lot of the blame for the mess just now (wrongly, in my view) but Leave voters could easily get pissed off with Boris and turn to Nigel if he pulls a stunt like that.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Who gives a hoot. An electoral pact wouldn't be about winning seats for the Brexit party, it will be about gaining tory seats where the Brexit split vote could make the difference. And all at the low cost of the tories giving up seats they can't win anyways. With labour and lib dems looking like they're aiming for the same thing, it could be more than enough for a tory majority. 

Because, at the end of the day, it is all about winning...yes?

 

I don't actually mean that backhandedly...one of the key strengths, if not the key strength of most right-wing political organisations around the world - they understand the importance of winning political control and what it takes to achieve it better, I think, than their counterparts on the left do.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Who gives a hoot. An electoral pact wouldn't be about winning seats for the Brexit party, it will be about gaining tory seats where the Brexit split vote could make the difference. And all at the low cost of the tories giving up seats they can't win anyways. With labour and lib dems looking like they're aiming for the same thing, it could be more than enough for a tory majority. 

 

Seats that the Tories can't win are mostly also seats that the Brexit Party can't win, so what would be in it for them?

Seats where there was a big Brexit Party vote include a lot of Tory target seats, mainly in the North/Midlands (see list that I posted above).

 

There are a handful of seats, mainly Remain-voting seats in the South, where the lack of a Brexit Party candidate might help the Tories win.....but not very many of them.

 

What the Tories really need is for Farage to say: Brexit is what matters to me, not myself or my party, so we're folding the party - or not standing candidates and recommending people vote Tory.

I'm not sure he'd be prepared to trust Johnson to that extent, even if he was sufficiently lacking in ego to put cause above self/party.

[Finnaldo]

17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Seats that the Tories can't win are mostly also seats that the Brexit Party can't win, so what would be in it for them?

Seats where there was a big Brexit Party vote include a lot of Tory target seats, mainly in the North/Midlands (see list that I posted above).

 

There are a handful of seats, mainly Remain-voting seats in the South, where the lack of a Brexit Party candidate might help the Tories win.....but not very many of them.

 

What the Tories really need is for Farage to say: Brexit is what matters to me, not myself or my party, so we're folding the party - or not standing candidates and recommending people vote Tory.

I'm not sure he'd be prepared to trust Johnson to that extent, even if he was sufficiently lacking in ego to put cause above self/party.

 

Spot on Alf.

 

Farage is a right-wing Conservative, his charisma and everyman appeal shines through on single issue matters like Brexit but his stances on abolishing the NHS system for a health insurance system amongst other policy means his stock in ex-Labour voters only goes so far. He knows full well he has to be looking at Tory seats to be in with a chance, if he has any long-term ambition in British politics it will be hoping for a Tory collapse and picking up the scraps of that as the 'New Conservatives'. 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Spot on Alf.

 

Farage is a right-wing Conservative, his charisma and everyman appeal shines through on single issue matters like Brexit but his stances on abolishing the NHS system for a health insurance system amongst other policy means his stock in ex-Labour voters only goes so far. He knows full well he has to be looking at Tory seats to be in with a chance, if he has any long-term ambition in British politics it will be hoping for a Tory collapse and picking up the scraps of that as the 'New Conservatives'. 

 

I agree with your points about the nature of Farage's politics and him targeting Tory voters in the long-term - if he's in it for the long-term (his attitude at this election will answer that).

 

But I was making a different point about the target seats at the imminent election: 

Labour Leave seats constitute the vast majority of the seats the Tories need to win - but are also the seats where Farage has a chance in the short-term, making any electoral pact more difficult. 

[Beechey]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought we'd already voted for Brexit, that Brexit is Brexit and so we don't need another referendum? 

 

Now, you want a referendum - and one that includes no option for Remain or for any sort of Soft Brexit. How do you think 50%+ of the population will react to that?

 

Then, there's the proposed electoral pact....

- The Tories would presumably commit to this referendum even though they've negotiated a deal....and would call a Boris Deal v. No Deal referendum even if they won a landslide? 

- Brexit Party would campaign for your referendum - and for No Deal, while the Tories stood aside in seats they could win, for a party on 11-14% in the polls? And all the Tory voters in those seats would happily vote for Farage's No Deal agenda, along with large numbers of Labour Leave supporters? 

 

I can only think that some of the more fanatical Brexiteer zealots have worked themselves into such a frenzy of frustration, they've gone completely mad!   

A point that needs to be pointed:

 

Boris' deal is only the withdrawal though, with a transition period. Whilst in the transition, the UK could negotiate whatever close arrangement it wanted with the EU.

We might (and likely will) find that lowering migration by 2/3 is a bit silly, for example, meaning remaining in the Single Market becomes possible.

Edited 23 October 2019 by Beechey

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Because, at the end of the day, it is all about winning...yes?

 

I don't actually mean that backhandedly...one of the key strengths, if not the key strength of most right-wing political organisations around the world - they understand the importance of winning political control and what it takes to achieve it better, I think, than their counterparts on the left do.

Of course it is. The people hunting power rarely give a crap about how they get it. Just like the tactical voting at the last election to gain labour seats. 

 

Hell I'd dare suggest that if that dude who works with Labour  got back to his postal vote rigging ways and that tipped the balance of power, they'd only be a tiny majority of Labour supporters who were mad about it. 

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Beechey said:

A point that needs to be pointed:

 

Boris' deal is only the withdrawal though, with a transmition period. Whilst in the transition, the UK could negotiate whatever close arrangement it wanted with the EU.

We might (and likely will) find that lowering migration by 2/3 is a bit silly, for example, meaning remaining in the Single Market becomes possible.

 

Point taken that the future UK-EU relationship is still up for negotiation & could, in theory, be made "Softer" during negotiations. But that's highly unlikely, unless there's a change of govt, surely?

 

Apart from the Irish border arrangements, the main changes made in Boris' Deal are to make the deal "harder" so as to bring his ERG crew onside, in which he's succeeded:

- alignment with EU employment protection shifted from binding WA to non-binding Political Declaration;

- request for extension to transition period for further FTA negotiations has to be made by June 2020;

- Govt only required to report to parliament on negotiations, not consult for scrutiny etc. 

 

I can't see a Boris Govt opting to stay in the SM - particularly, if he wins a majority at an election.

Re. migration: I presume that freedom of movement continues during the transition period, anyway, doesn't it?

 

Any changes to "Soften" the future relationship probably need to be made via amendments to the deal now, if it's not pulled - unless the Tories fail to win the election (still possible, but I wouldn't bet on it)

 

Edited 23 October 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Seats that the Tories can't win are mostly also seats that the Brexit Party can't win, so what would be in it for them?

Seats where there was a big Brexit Party vote include a lot of Tory target seats, mainly in the North/Midlands (see list that I posted above).

 

There are a handful of seats, mainly Remain-voting seats in the South, where the lack of a Brexit Party candidate might help the Tories win.....but not very many of them.

 

What the Tories really need is for Farage to say: Brexit is what matters to me, not myself or my party, so we're folding the party - or not standing candidates and recommending people vote Tory.

I'm not sure he'd be prepared to trust Johnson to that extent, even if he was sufficiently lacking in ego to put cause above self/party.

Can't look at what you posted before because I'm at work. Will look when I get home. From what I read when Boris rejected the pact the last time, some pollster (can't remember who) said it would gain the tories at least 40 seats. Not to be sniffed at, and could be the difference between a majority or not. Depends what they'd have to agree to in return I guess. 

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Point taken that the future UK-EU relationship is still up for negotiation & could, in theory, be made "Softer" during negotiations. But that's highly unlikely, unless there's a change of govt, surely?

 

Apart from the Irish border arrangements, the main changes made in Boris' Deal are to make the deal "harder" so as to bring his ERG crew onside, in which he's succeeded:

- alignment with EU employment protection shifted from binding WA to non-binding Political Declaration;

- request for extension to transition period for further FTA negotiations has to be made by June 2020;

- Govt only required to report to parliament on negotiations, not consult for scrutiny etc. 

 

I can't see a Boris Govt opting to stay in the SM - particularly, if he wins a majority at an election.

Re. migration: I presume that freedom of movement continues during the transition period, anyway, doesn't it?

I can't either, but it's not right that os many people think this agreement is the end state.

We could still move to any other kind of Brexit even after this agreement is ratified.

 

Maybe not a Boris government, but I could comfortably see a less hardline government opting to stay in the SM.

 

Freedom of Movement does continue, yes. Was merely a point. I think at some point we will collectively come to the conclusion that migration is not the major issue it's made out to be.

Edited 23 October 2019 by Beechey