War & PoliticsBrexit deal nigh or nyet?

 

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  milko  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.61 In reply to 42264.59 
yeah, these opportunistic MPs like Austin and Umunna are happy to use spurious antisemitism accusations to attack the leadership, largely (entirely, even?) to further their agenda of turning the party back to the right. I mean, that's the party they joined under Blair et al, they have the right to try and change it but this is a really bad way to go about it and diminishes actual genuine efforts to combat antisemitism. And of course, the press and many people in power are desperate to avoid Corbyn becoming PM so they gleefully amplify it. Horrible situation.
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   
 To:  ALL
42264.62 
Looking like May and her deal's geese are cooked...
“I believe real life and the internet differ.”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      
42264.63 In reply to 42264.62 
It looks that way, though the numbers are still fluid and the ERG have yet to come to a collective decision.  Brextremists will be weighing up a half-assed (in their terms) Brexit against the possibility of a softer Brexit yet, or even no Brexit at all, if it's voted down and there's a successful vote for an extension.

If she's voted down this evening, she's toast.  Any normal person would resign if that happened but she adamantly believes in a responsibility to public service (it's a vicar's child thing. I speak from a position of knowledge). She also believes, erroneously, that she's the best person for the job.  So she will have to pushed. The Ides of March are approaching.

"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  Manthorp     
42264.64 In reply to 42264.63 
Quote: 
she adamantly believes in a responsibility to public service
I can't help thinking that this is an exceptionally generous assessment. I'd offer a psychological explanation myself: she's dangerously controlling and stubborn. People who believe in a responsibility to public service tend not to make commitments and then renege on them as readily as she does. Looking at her history, acting on her nasty little prejudices as Home Secretary and then terrified of her party's right wing over Brexit, to me she looks more like  the School Bully's best mate rather than an archetypal Vicar's kid.
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Manthorp     
42264.65 In reply to 42264.63 
> If she's voted down this evening, she's toast.

By 149 votes (38:62). Time to heat the beans then?

+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.66 In reply to 42264.64 
I agree, but I don't think that the two explanations are mutually exclusive. Dedication to public* service has an strong element of arrogance about it: it often involves the assumption that one's values & aspirations and those of the constituency one serves are closely aligned. And, of course, one's values and aspirations are often informed, consciously or not, by one's own self-interest and prejudices.

It's not uncommon (and often not wrong) for those dedicated to service to give the public what they think is good for them, rather than what they want.

*I mistyped 'pubic', then shuddered at my error.

"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp  
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)     
42264.67 In reply to 42264.65 
We can only hope.

Of course, there's a certain element of 'be careful what you wish for' about what happens if she goes. Who, out of this current government of all the talentless, would be a better alternative?  The only one I can think of - who also has a snowball's chance of being voted in by the Tories - is Amber Rudd: and I say that only as I would, deciding which animal's shit would be better in my sandwich.

"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  Manthorp     
42264.68 In reply to 42264.67 
Absolutely. That's a big problem with the current Tory crop. I do try to think outside my lefty bubble and look for positives in some of them. Clearly, I am never going to have any sympathy for Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Chope, Cleverly, Fox, Leadsom etc. but I see Amber Rudd saying a few honest things about Universal Credit and I remind myself that she has been strong enough to take the bullet for May in the Home Office, and earlier in the election debate. Then I start to wonder about her role as Home Secretary and just how clean her hands really are. Political memories are short, but it really is only a year ago that Amber Rudd was facing criticism for her failure to tackle knife crime and her efforts to justify savage cuts to the police force. She may not have the obvious vanity and gross personal ambition of Sajid Javid, but her failures add up to complicity. 

With her off my list, I can't think of one who is fit to be PM, or even one who actually shows any interest at all in public service rather than personal enrichment and acting out dirty little urges and prejudices.

(edited shocking grammar)
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.69 In reply to 42264.68 
ultimately, any tory is gonna hang their hat on the austerity peg, so I find it impossible to see any of them other than disastrous. Even the ones who centrist types see some hope in (like TINGE types such as "Soubz") have a voting record that reveals their actual deeds do not even nearly match their lip-service to humane policy.
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  milko     
42264.70 In reply to 42264.69 
I'm sad to say I agree. I did say that political memories are short and I suppose there's also the rosy tint of passing time, but much as I loathed Thatcher and most of her ilk, and her successors, at least I could see that some of them (though obviously not many) were doing what they did because they believed it was for the public good. With the Tory party since the turn of the century, I see a resurgence of entitlement, a profound hatred of the idea of public provision and a horrible willingness to flirt with extreme right-wing populism. The predominant economic model of government is not to sustain the nation in any way but to normalise the process of driving wealth up to the rich and risk down to the poor. Banks and "Captains" of finance are no longer risk-takers; they will be bailed out if things go wrong.
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.71 In reply to 42264.70 
too true. My fear is that the current press are only too happy to misreport all this, and the public seem quite content to read it and accept lies at face value even when they contradict what the politician said earlier, later, was happening right next to them during the interview, pretty much anything really. Ugh.
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)  
 To:  Manthorp     
42264.72 In reply to 42264.67 
Probably a bird - liquids go down quicker - or maybe a pet rodent since it's less likely to overpower the cheese and ketchup.

According to Wikipedia/YouGov, the most recent (July 2018) Conservative party member poll has top three as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ruth Davidson, Sajid Javid. Ambed Rudd is one of three marked as N/A, but it doesn't explain why.

Given that TM won the no confidence vote relatively comfortably, she can't be officially pushed before December, right? So she'd need to want to pass the chalice to someone specific to not stubbornly hold on?

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  milko     
42264.73 In reply to 42264.71 
The news cycle is far too quick right now. Resulting in there being very little risk to lying. There's far more news and outrage about something else before there's time to expose a liar.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  ANT_THOMAS     
42264.74 In reply to 42264.73 
90% of the press are obviously hugely biased towards a right-wing and (because of their various proprietors) largely pro-leave viewpoint. The same applies to the news coverage on television, with the possible exception of Channel 4. The BBC doesn't even pretend to be unbiased any more, packing their news programmes with guests from the right, "interviewed" by extreme right-wingers like Andrew Neil, or Emily Maitlis* (and if anybody thinks that's unfair on Maitlis, remember that she works for the Spectator for free). When a guest from the left appears, they are invariably introduced with references to their being left-wing, or 'supporters of Jeremy Corbyn' before facing a barrage of sarcastic questions, expressions of disbelief, questions that are either actually accusations, or lengthy speeches supporting the establishment cause (I'm looking at you, wannabe renaissance-man Andrew Marr). 

*there seems to be some kind of competition going on amongst BBC presenters at the moment to see how much they can get away with in verbal assaults on anybody from the Labour party or the left generally. Neil has the blue ribbon at the moment for his treatment of Owen Jones on the Daily Politics, but Maitlis challenged this when she asked Barry Gardiner the absurd question 'what Brexit Vision will be on Labour's manifesto in the event of a General Election next week?' Now given that NO political party has formulated an election manifesto because no election has been announced 2) The last Labour manifesto and probably the next will have far more input from the membership of the party than in previous years, Maitlis clearly knew that this was not the simple question she wanted it to sound like and the suggestion that he could answer in the few seconds available disingenuous. As soon as he started to speak, she started to interrupt, saying that his attempt at an answer was just 'what was on the leaflet' and accompanied this with furious body language: tossing her head impatiently, dramatic eye-roll to camera, acting out 'not listening' by writing on her notes finally refusing to let him speak. I'm not saying that Gardiner handled it well, but it was a deliberate trap, much in the Laura Kuenssberg tradition.

 
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.75 In reply to 42264.74 
The CBC here are performing a somewhat similar function, but perhaps with more subtlety ATM given the situation is less dire... my theory is they (publicly/gummint funded new organizations) are simply hedging their bets against the day a right-wing (or more extreme right-wing) government is in power, with the traditional howls (fueled by media-owning patrons) to defund socialist projects such as public television et al.

TLDR; They are running scared.
“I believe real life and the internet differ.”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      
42264.76 In reply to 42264.75 
yeah, here the BBC is (or was?) under severe threat of being defunded to the point of shutdown by any Conservative government. It seems to have made them afraid to present much in the way of opposing views, and a suspicious amount of their political journos either have second jobs or move on to their next jobs in conservative/right wing political orgs. That plus a bizarre mishandling of 'balance' making them feel the need to put one climate change denier on air for every story about how fucked the planet is... well, grr. It's a shame.

Pretty much all of the rest of the press is just owned and operated by rich people with everything to lose if a vaguely socialist Labour ever gets into power, so naturally they fight it and smear all the way.
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)     
42264.77 In reply to 42264.74 
Not much to say to that apart from I agree, and that Andrew Neil is a cunt.

As Milko mentioned, along with the bias, I hate him even more because of his climate change denial. That really really fucks me off.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)  
 To:  ANT_THOMAS     
42264.78 In reply to 42264.77 
He is, isn't he. And yeah, the climate change denial thing disgusts me. I really don't believe he's stupid enough to actually believe that nearly every climate scientist in the world is wrong and Breitbart is right. My conclusion is that he's actually lying because he doesn't give a fuck about the future and instinctively supports big business and its short-term greed.

I'm kind of puzzled by people like Andrew Neil. He's obviously intelligent. I mean he's not just a product of the entitlement system like Johnson or Rees Mogg, or intellectually limited like Mark Francois, so he must have chosen to be a bad person. And I assume he's quite comfortable with life, knowing that he's an awful human being. Weird.
never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   
 To:  ALL
42264.79 
Bercow just tossed a spanner into it.
“Michael Jackson fan groups to sue accusers for ‘sullying his memory’”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      
42264.80 In reply to 42264.79 
Saw that mentioned around a week ago, and it does technically make perfect sense.

Though apparently if a majority of MPs want to vote on it again they can. So May would need to find a majority to enable a vote, then get a majority to vote for her WA, who have previously massively voted against it.

Messy as per.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–40  41–60  61–80  81–94

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2019 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats