In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On May 15 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote: Not really. I agree with you. May and the conservatives in general are far too authoritarian for my liking. They have passed all sorts of stupid and intrusive legislation. Unfortunately there's no real liberal party, just a few MPs within the conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I still don't understand why the Lib Dems went down. Why do people not like them?
On May 15 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote: Not really. I agree with you. May and the conservatives in general are far too authoritarian for my liking. They have passed all sorts of stupid and intrusive legislation. Unfortunately there's no real liberal party, just a few MPs within the conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I still don't understand why the Lib Dems went down. Why do people not like them?
They made a big deal of promising not to raise tuition fees, signing giant pledges and doing photo ops with them, and then voted to raise tuition fees. Their voter base is primarily students, so it collapsed after that.
I personally dislike them for trying to undermine Brexit, which is their only real ambition for the time being.
On May 15 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote: Not really. I agree with you. May and the conservatives in general are far too authoritarian for my liking. They have passed all sorts of stupid and intrusive legislation. Unfortunately there's no real liberal party, just a few MPs within the conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Any notables that a dumb yank might have heard of? That might have a few speeches or in depth articles to tune into?
On May 15 2017 08:28 bardtown wrote: Not really. I agree with you. May and the conservatives in general are far too authoritarian for my liking. They have passed all sorts of stupid and intrusive legislation. Unfortunately there's no real liberal party, just a few MPs within the conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I still don't understand why the Lib Dems went down. Why do people not like them?
3rd party in a two party system problems, combined with losing the electoral reform vote and entering a coalition.
In the 80s Labour completely lost the plot and promised unilateral and immediate withdrawal from international organizations (EU etc), unilateral nuclear disarmament, nationalization of all heavy industries and a bunch of other hardcore socialist shit. There were a bunch of normal leftists in Labour who were told to back the leadership or be deselected (party leader has much more control in Britain, dissenters can simply be kicked out the party and barred from running as the party candidate for a seat, generally guaranteeing they lose their job as MP, even if they're the favourite of the local party, no primaries). The party split into the Social Democratic Party and Old Labour with a decent number of sitting MPs changing party midyear.
The left wing won a overwhelming majority of the votes in the 1983 election but the vote was split and it returned Thatcher's ultra right wing Conservative Party with an overwhelming majority of the seats due to simple plurality. The SDP ran in alliance with the Liberal party and eventually merged to form the Lib Dems who always did pretty well at elections but always got fucked by First Past The Post (simple plurality) because a split vote favours the enemy.
After 18 years of Conservative rule Old Labour died and New Labour, who were basically the SDP, took over. They ran the 1997 election with strategic alliances against Tory seats, if Labour were likely to come second then Lib Dem voters voted Labour, if Lib Dem were likely to come second then Labour voters voted Lib Dem. Part of this bargain was that Labour would take a look at FPTP if they won. Labour won a huge victory and promptly decided that they liked FPTP so nothing changed. Lib Dems had their ground usurped by Labour and they seemed pretty pointless, a wasted vote because there already was a dominant centre left party.
The Lib Dems led the resistance to the Iraq War and got some cred back for that, and more as it slowly turned into a calamity. However they had the problem of not being seen as a real party due to their last actual cabinet experience being members of the Labour government defeated in 1979 that had defected with the SDPs. The argument leveled against them was that it's very easy to oppose things in opposition but it's much harder to actually govern when you can't simply promise everything the people want (such as no university tuition fees) without having to pay for it.
The 2010 General Election fucked them over. No party won an absolute majority of seats in Westminster and therefore no party was invited by the Queen to form a government. The party with the plurality and the objective victor in the election were the Conservatives, Labour being the defeated party, although the Lib Dems came third as usual. There either needed to be a second election or a coalition, as the Conservatives couldn't be expected to enter a minority government. A rainbow coalition of all the defeated groups was proposed but wasn't feasible and realistically the only possible coalition was Lib-Con, despite the ideological divide. The problem was that the Lib Dems didn't really want to be part of a Tory government. However after 31 years out of government and 31 years of telling people that voting third party can totally make a difference, despite it not making a difference, they couldn't refuse a shot of actual power and cabinet experience. Every election the Lib Dems had to insist that this time voting Lib Dem would change the world and to ignore all the previous times it hadn't and to keep the faith. And it finally happened, there was a hung Parliament and Lib Dems would get to decide it, if they refused to enter Government unless they won an absolute victory then they'd be telling all their voters that it was all a waste of time. Lib Dems never win a majority, they won't do anything without a majority, therefore Lib Dems never do anything. Coalition was vital to defend the very concept of a third party in British politics.
They entered the coalition as a junior partner. Neither party had won the election and therefore neither party was bound by their manifesto and they were able to negotiate with each other regarding which policies the two parties would work together to push through and which they would not. The Lib Dems got gay marriage, the deputy PM job and crucially a referendum on electoral reform and scrapping FPTP for PR, a change that would make the Lib Dems a major player in every election going forwards. The Conservatives got most of their manifesto but scrapped fox hunting and the like.
The Conservatives and Labour campaigned strongly against electoral reform, Cameron explaining that promising a referendum doesn't mean promising to support the referendum (a trick that would later end his career when he tried it again) and the Lib Dems lost. Meanwhile much of their party didn't understand the difference between "if we win we will do X" and "if we come third and get a shot at a partnership then we will do X" and were angry about the coalition. Ultimately the Lib Dems got fucked. They're basically the good guys in the last forty years of British politics, they've been on the right side of everything, they were centre left social democrats before there was a centre left, they were for every good social movement and against every catastrophe. But that's FPTP for you.
To add to Kwark's explanation: I think the Lib Dems did an awful job during the coalition of making it clear what they had achieved. The rise in pre-tax allowance and legalising gay marriage should have been shouted about. The Lib Dems should have used such changes as reasons to vote for them in 2015, to prove they can make a difference and that votes for them can matter.
However, they tried to present a united front with the Tories during the coalition and the Tories took the credit for the popular things. This also allowed people to blame the Lib Dems for the tuition fee rises even though it was a concession to the Tories. So the Lib Dems got part blame for unpopular policies and little to no credit for popular ones. They also looked untrustworthy, for seemingly changing their mind about various policies, and 'betraying' their left-leaning voters by joining the Tories.
A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Well that was a thorough write up thanks. It's quite funny how much British politics has mirrored the German development in a way. Schröder representing the New Labour, A Conservative-Liberal government that blasted the FDP out of every parliament and now a Conservative majority. (although the German liberals had even less to show than the Lib-Dems)
And given that the Lib-Dem pro-EU position doesn't really seem to have any pull, what's the option now for them? Strengthening the social-liberal wing or trying to present an alternative for Tory voters? And in the same vein, do people here think that Labour should try to win back centre-left voters as well and ditch Corbyn?
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
Well, that's 52% of voters for you. No plan. Just "take back control" and "350 million for NHS", both of which were later rejected by Brexit guys themselves.
To be honest, the lib dem chose poorly on which issue to push and which issues to give way on. The biggest issue of the lib dems were on student loans and media freedoms, and gay marriage and the like were side issues by comparison, yet they gave up on their core issues in favour of pushing their side issues. So yes they took the blame for every poorly recieved action the coalition did with no acknowledgement of the good they had done, but that was their fault in a way. Perhaps they had no alternative, or perhaps they simply thought that was the best course of action for their party.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
No matter whether they expected remain to win or not has nothing to do with triggering article 50 prematurely without proper preparation. Nobody forced the conservatives to do so but themselves. That is laughable.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
No matter whether they expected remain to win or not has nothing to do with triggering article 50 prematurely without proper preparation. Nobody forced the conservatives to do so but themselves. That is laughable.
Eh the British Civil service is notoriously incompetent and ministers have no relevant expertise in making trade deals because we haven't made any since joining the EU. Seems sensible to go to a private corporation for expert advice nothing to do with preparedness of the current politicians, the civil service refused to even prepare for the possibility of Brexit.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
No matter whether they expected remain to win or not has nothing to do with triggering article 50 prematurely without proper preparation. Nobody forced the conservatives to do so but themselves. That is laughable.
Where do you get a set of highly experienced trade agreement negotiators? The UK government does not have enough because they haven't needed them.
You wanted them to wait a decade to train them and let them gain real world experience?
Why can you find them in a German ministry then when the exact same circumstances you mentioned also are applicable to Germany? As I said, I approve of the move in a sense that I don't want the UK to be screwed over. But I still take it as a sign of a move that is needlessly rushed and wholly underprepared. No more, no less.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
No matter whether they expected remain to win or not has nothing to do with triggering article 50 prematurely without proper preparation. Nobody forced the conservatives to do so but themselves. That is laughable.
Except the EU which was putting pressure on the UK to trigger article 50 asap.
I'm sure there are experts on trade in the UK just not enough for these negotiations. I doubt that Germany has anywhere near enough people for such a thing as well.
On May 16 2017 19:57 Artisreal wrote: Why can you find them in a German ministry then when the exact same circumstances you mentioned also are applicable to Germany? As I said, I approve of the move in a sense that I don't want the UK to be screwed over. But I still take it as a sign of a move that is needlessly rushed and wholly underprepared. No more, no less.
source?
Also I would assume that when the EU decided to become a single union for trade agreements that they selected people from the combined pool of negotiators to make deals on the EU's behalf. Maybe the German ones were kept on for this while the UK ones were not.
On May 16 2017 05:02 Artisreal wrote: A friend of mine works for the GIZ (orgaqnisation for international cooperation which is a fancy term for development aid) in the trade section and her team is consulting the governmental agencies on trade agreements among other things. A colleague of hers was approached by the British Brexit negotiation delegation and now is working with them for a good trade deal for the UK.
It's good to know for the citizens that their government approaches the best people to get a superb deal. Kinda laughable though that they are recruited from the outside, shows how well prepared the whole thing is. Trade agreement below 2 years. I do not wish bad things on the UK and hope that BREXIT is refreshing for both sides involved, but getting a deal in that time is rather optimistic.
Why is that laughable? There's nowhere else to get them. Of course they weren't prepared because they expected remain to win.
The 2 year timeframe is impossible. Even CETA took 7 years and this is way more complex. We're going to get a transitional agreement for sure.
No matter whether they expected remain to win or not has nothing to do with triggering article 50 prematurely without proper preparation. Nobody forced the conservatives to do so but themselves. That is laughable.
Except the EU which was putting pressure on the UK to trigger article 50 asap.
I'm sure there are experts on trade in the UK just not enough for these negotiations. I doubt that Germany has anywhere near enough people for such a thing as well.
Except that it was Teresa May's government that decided when to activate article 50, and she wished to do so as fast as possible to the point of not wishing to consult parliament, such was her desire to speed it all through. The EU didn't force her government to do so; in fact the impression I got would be that the EU would be perfectly happy if it was put off for as long as possible.
They didn't rush. They took the best part of a year before triggering A50, and you cannot continue indefinitely with uncertainty or you risk serious damage to the economy.
I'm not sure how you got that impression. The EU obviously wanted article 50 asap since it puts a clock on the negotiations and gives them more leverage.
EPT
