FlyTheNest

SpinningHugo wrote:Counterbalance to the Zunger piece I posted on Trump

https://tompepinsky.com/2017/01/30/weak ... g-leaders/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Standing next to Trump, who nodded along, May said: “On defence and security cooperation, we’re united in our recognition of Nato as the bulwark of our collective defence and we reaffirmed our unshakeable commitment to this alliance. We’re 100% behind Nato.

StephenDolan wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Counterbalance to the Zunger piece I posted on Trump

https://tompepinsky.com/2017/01/30/weak ... g-leaders/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That NonOxCol referenced?

Lakoff has been doing some great interviews with the On The Media team about Bannon and Trump and how they should be considered, reported.

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

Subject: The UK’s negotiating objectives for its withdrawal from the EU
Witnesses:
David Goodhart, Head of the Demography, Immigration, and Integration Unit, Policy Exchange,
Sunder Katwala, Director, British Future, and
Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, King's College London

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

Willow904 wrote:Victoria Derbyshire (on BBC News 24) is covering the state of the NHS on Monday. Asking for contributions from people involved in the NHS. They'll be pretty inundated, I imagine.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

Morning PF

This is indeed a huge risk with Labour's approach. The stakes are very high. I wonder if there is still a possibility that, if zero amendments are accepted, Labour will turn on the Tories at the final vote.

Labour does have to be able to say at some point "we told you so". The amendments are designed to do that. We told you it would wreck the economy, the NHS, security, research etc.

But yes if none are accepted....

55DegreesNorth wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

Morning PF

This is indeed a huge risk with Labour's approach. The stakes are very high. I wonder if there is still a possibility that, if zero amendments are accepted, Labour will turn on the Tories at the final vote.

Labour does have to be able to say at some point "we told you so". The amendments are designed to do that. We told you it would wreck the economy, the NHS, security, research etc.

But yes if none are accepted....

Only fools and WUMs would state what the future will be, at least in politics. However, it seems to me that there is a degree of certainty about what would have happened whatever Brexit position Labour had taken:
Vote against- "Enemy of the people", "Don't trust/listen to the people", some rebels voting 'in line with demands of constituents wishes/principles';
Abstain/Free vote- "Weak leadership", "Indecisive", MPs vote 'in line with demands of constituents wishes/principles';
Vote in favour- Some rebels voting 'in line with demands of constituents wishes/principles';
The last option allows Labour & others to put protective amendments in place, or at least to put the Tories in the position of explicitly refusing to guarantee workers rights, the NHS, tarif-free access to the Single Market, Customs Union etc. There's also the possibility of reversing the whip if it's clear that the Tories are insisting on a hard Brexit. Personally, I can't see that Labour had any other option. What happens over the next couple of weeks is what matters.

Sorry, Morning folks.
Edited to add manners.

The last option allows Labour & others to put protective amendments in place, or at least to put the Tories in the position of explicitly refusing to guarantee workers rights, the NHS, tarif-free access to the Single Market, Customs Union etc. my emphasis)

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

Vicki Young (@BBCVickiYoung)

Listening to Sir Ivan Rogers brings home the huge complexity of our relationship with EU. Affects every aspect of UK economy. #brexit
February 1, 2017

(Politics Live, Guardian)

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

It'll be like Iraq. There'll be plenty of people with false memories of how they voted.

On here there will be people claiming they never backed Labour's position, that they were pro-Remain all along.

There won't be many Labour politicians left by then, there'll be some kind of political re-configuration.

PorFavor wrote:

Vicki Young (@BBCVickiYoung)

Listening to Sir Ivan Rogers brings home the huge complexity of our relationship with EU. Affects every aspect of UK economy. #brexit
February 1, 2017

(Politics Live, Guardian)

So why wasn't this complexity examined during the Referendum campaign?

gilsey wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Vicki Young (@BBCVickiYoung)

Listening to Sir Ivan Rogers brings home the huge complexity of our relationship with EU. Affects every aspect of UK economy. #brexit
February 1, 2017

(Politics Live, Guardian)

So why wasn't this complexity examined during the Referendum campaign?

People's eyes glaze over.
My first reaction when it seemed like leaving the EU was actually going to happen was OMG it'll be a bureaucratic nightmare, but on attempting to put that to others, they just switched off.

i oppose leaving on ideological grounds as well, as I hope you know.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

It'll be like Iraq. There'll be plenty of people with false memories of how they voted.

On here there will be people claiming they never backed Labour's position, that they were pro-Remain all along.

There won't be many Labour politicians left by then, there'll be some kind of political re-configuration.

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I find this idea that people will blame Labour rather than the Tories - WHO ARE IN POWER AND CARRIED OUT THE REFERENDUM - if Brexit is a disaster pretty absurd to be honest. And a lot of people do *not* think of their elected representatives in that way.

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

When the dreadful consequences of "Brexit" become obvious to the public, what will they do?

I believe that they will turn on the politicians who professed to be in favour of remaining "In" who, nevertheless, helped "Brexit" along its way. People will say, "Yes, we took part in the Referendum but, not being experts, we relied upon our elected representatives who have, after all, the inside track, to ensure that this (whatever "this" may be - but I can make a good guess) didn't happen".

And the politicians who will come off worse (again a good guess, I believe) will be Labour politicians. "we elected you to know better than we did" will be the rationale. Maybe unfair, but then life often is, isn't it?

There is, of course, no control experiment - just a "then v now" thing.

It'll be like Iraq. There'll be plenty of people with false memories of how they voted.

On here there will be people claiming they never backed Labour's position, that they were pro-Remain all along.

There won't be many Labour politicians left by then, there'll be some kind of political re-configuration.

What sort of political re-configuration to you envision? Lib/Lab/Green amalgamation? or more profound?

I'm not making this up. Cash has chance to question expert on challenges ahead in most complex bureaucratic process we've ever gone through.

His question is: 'Do you like Brexit?'

NonOxCol wrote:Apparently 49% of people want Trump to come and only 36% are opposed. And then there's this:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The right-wing press are as powerful as they ever were, it seems. And, perhaps crucially, the BBC is no longer a bulwark against such propaganda.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I find this idea that people will blame Labour rather than the Tories - WHO ARE IN POWER AND CARRIED OUT THE REFERENDUM - if Brexit is a disaster pretty absurd to be honest. And a lot of people do *not* think of their elected representatives in that way.

I think the MPs who vote for Brexit will be blamed, and there is a strong correlation between MPs refusing to back Art 50, and those in Remain seats. Peter Kyle, Clive Lewis, Tulip Saddiq, Daniel Zeichner and so on. The list of rebels against the three line whip in favour of voting with the Tories (which is a bit incomplete I think) is mainly southern, London centric

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... ones-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I think there will always be plenty of Brexiters come what may after we leave. The Tories will be fine in vote share terms. Labour MPs who vote for Brexit and then try to disclaim responsibility because not in government deserve nothing but contempt.#

What is sad is how few MPs of actual principle there re. Ann Coffey, who I like, deserves credit for example.

Labour's big problem, and this isn't Corbyn's fault, is that it is neither for nor against. So Remainers, like me, will vote elsewhere. That leaves Labour just with the tribalists who don't really care about Brexit. That is quite a small group of people with personal investment.

When also led by Corbyn, that looks like the perfect storm.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
It'll be like Iraq. There'll be plenty of people with false memories of how they voted.

On here there will be people claiming they never backed Labour's position, that they were pro-Remain all along.

There won't be many Labour politicians left by then, there'll be some kind of political re-configuration.

What sort of political re-configuration to you envision? Lib/Lab/Green amalgamation? or more profound?

A best guess?

Labour is going to lose around 50 MPs in the General Election, and the Tories will be returned with a large majority. There will be a very small Lib Dem revival, the Greens will win just one seat,

The fight between Corbyn Supporters v the PLP will then restart, though the PLP by then will have changed with the Blairites almost all gone, and many of the soft left of ability having quit. It will be both a smaller party, and one where the more able have left to do things of more use.

With luck, it will be at that point that the members come to their senses, and a new leader is elected with the sense to reach out to other parties and ditch the wilder aspects of Corbynism. Lewis is clearly positioning himself to be that person. He'll try and do a deal with the Lib Dems and Greens (there is no way any deal is possible with the sectional nationalists).

Or, Labour splits, with the Corbyn rump retreating still further.

By the 2030 election that reconfiguration should be in a position to be competitive with the Tories.

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote: I find this idea that people will blame Labour rather than the Tories - WHO ARE IN POWER AND CARRIED OUT THE REFERENDUM - if Brexit is a disaster pretty absurd to be honest. And a lot of people do *not* think of their elected representatives in that way.

I think the MPs who vote for Brexit will be blamed, and there is a strong correlation between MPs refusing to back Art 50, and those in Remain seats. Peter Kyle, Clive Lewis, Tulip Saddiq, Daniel Zeichner and so on. The list of rebels against the three line whip in favour of voting with the Tories (which is a bit incomplete I think) is mainly southern, London centric

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... ones-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I think there will always be plenty of Brexiters come what may after we leave. The Tories will be fine in vote share terms. Labour MPs who vote for Brexit and then try to disclaim responsibility because not in government deserve nothing but contempt.#

What is sad is how few MPs of actual principle there re. Ann Coffey, who I like, deserves credit for example.

Labour's big problem, and this isn't Corbyn's fault, is that it is neither for nor against. So Remainers, like me, will vote elsewhere. That leaves Labour just with the tribalists who don't really care about Brexit. That is quite a small group of people with personal investment.

When also led by Corbyn, that looks like the perfect storm.

When reading Hugo's posts it is always good to remember that he is not only a proven liar who doctors dictionary entries, he is also a deliberate sower of discord and disharmony - its how he gets his kicks. Just think how happy we would be on this site if his mother had only swallowed?

He is also a very inadequate political commentator, so not only is his opinion worthless because of his many many proven lies and deceits, but there is also the abject record of failure when it comes to predicting political outcomes. I mean this is an individual who claims legal knowledge, but manages to get a supreme court judgement that everyone and my cat - known as Mr Whiskerson - knew was going the other way.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

NonOxCol wrote:Apparently 49% of people want Trump to come and only 36% are opposed. And then there's this:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The right-wing press are as powerful as they ever were, it seems. And, perhaps crucially, the BBC is no longer a bulwark against such propaganda.

I think it is wrong to assume all the 49% are wildly enthusiastic about his visit - many think (incorrectly) that it is something we "have" to do.

I would be very interested to see any polling done re Dubya's state visit in 2003 for comparison.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

NonOxCol wrote:Apparently 49% of people want Trump to come and only 36% are opposed. And then there's this:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The right-wing press are as powerful as they ever were, it seems. And, perhaps crucially, the BBC is no longer a bulwark against such propaganda.

I think it is wrong to assume all the 49% are wildly enthusiastic about his visit - many think (incorrectly) that it is something we "have" to do.

I would be very interested to see any polling done re Dubya's state visit in 2003 for comparison.

Maybe if they'd asked it in terms of "Given that previous Presidents have had to wait 2-3 years to be invited, should the invite have been made after 7 days?"

StephenDolan wrote:

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: I think the MPs who vote for Brexit will be blamed, and there is a strong correlation between MPs refusing to back Art 50, and those in Remain seats. Peter Kyle, Clive Lewis, Tulip Saddiq, Daniel Zeichner and so on. The list of rebels against the three line whip in favour of voting with the Tories (which is a bit incomplete I think) is mainly southern, London centric

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... ones-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I think there will always be plenty of Brexiters come what may after we leave. The Tories will be fine in vote share terms. Labour MPs who vote for Brexit and then try to disclaim responsibility because not in government deserve nothing but contempt.#

What is sad is how few MPs of actual principle there re. Ann Coffey, who I like, deserves credit for example.

Labour's big problem, and this isn't Corbyn's fault, is that it is neither for nor against. So Remainers, like me, will vote elsewhere. That leaves Labour just with the tribalists who don't really care about Brexit. That is quite a small group of people with personal investment.

When also led by Corbyn, that looks like the perfect storm.

When reading Hugo's posts it is always good to remember that he is not only a proven liar who doctors dictionary entries, he is also a deliberate sower of discord and disharmony - its how he gets his kicks. Just think how happy we would be on this site if his mother had only swallowed?

He is also a very inadequate political commentator, so not only is his opinion worthless because of his many many proven lies and deceits, but there is also the abject record of failure when it comes to predicting political outcomes. I mean this is an individual who claims legal knowledge, but manages to get a supreme court judgement that everyone and my cat - known as Mr Whiskerson - knew was going the other way.

That's ridiculous.

Who calls their cat Mr Whiskerson?

HindleA wrote:"It's inside out"

Tom Harris ‏@MrTCHarris 35m35 minutes ago

Depressing to see the Labour leader imply (“I have in my hand a piece of paper”) that the Nazi regime was no worse than America in 2017.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Temulkar

Thanks for the contributions which I know are very much valued. Perhaps best not overdo it

Ta

Temulkar wrote:And for anyone thinking the Lib dems are the principled opposition to brexit, they didn't turn up to the debate yesterday, and a third of the party's MPs will be voting to enact A50.