|
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. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 12 2017 08:33 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 08:11 bardtown wrote:
They don't want her to go because Labour will win a new contest. Only chance Tories have of hanging on is actually having a characterful leader, but Boris is a serious wildcard. Davis seems to be the most suitable but he wouldn't win an election. I don't buy that they wouldn't win, they nearly won with one of the worst campaigns in history and a leader who was too afraid to even debate and let Corbyn get away with Scot free for every single policy he announced. Corbyn is already hinting on a new election easy to share the blame for another with him. The elderly who didnt turn out will turn out this time as long as the dementia tax policy is clearly shown to be gone and actually offer something to the young like affordable housing not just a big fuck you. Edit: Also what Kwark said they can wait a while for the election if they are scared right now but May should go.
It's the momentum factor. Polls after the election show a significant shift to Labour when compared to those taken just before. They need to reset that with a manifesto that isn't terrible and a leader who can draw some people from outside their base. As for a reelection not being necessary - maybe. Perhaps new leadership is the most effective way to stop a reelection. I mean, the membership are very likely to vote for a Leave candidate which might take the wind out of the sails of potential pro-EU rebels who won't want to be seen opposing the country and the membership simultaneously.
|
On June 12 2017 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 04:15 KwarK wrote:On June 12 2017 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2017 21:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 21:06 Zaros wrote:On June 11 2017 20:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 15:23 KwarK wrote:
No, Corbyn cannot be Prime Minister. He lost the election, and pretty decisively. The fact that Theresa May didn't win it doesn't change that. Corbyn cannot govern without a new election.
He's just hoping that people will conclude that May's defeat is his triumph. 250 MPs does not a government make. He actually can, but it relies on the conservatives being unable to form a government and Labour being ready to take over by the deadline. Its possible, but 99.9999% not going to happen. His only hope is that some unhappy tories refuse to allow May to make a deal with the DUP, but I can't see it personally. In that situation he would be in government for 5 minutes before his queen speech didn't get passed and a new election would be called automatically. Absolutely right. I'm disagreeing with Labour's stance right now to be honest. Corbyn at this point wants chaos, and seems to be playing the Littlefinger role. Create as much damage in the tory party as possible by any means possible in the hope of gaining power. Its really not what the country needs right now. We need a parliament that can get decisions made and Labour should be thinking about how to play a part in that. Am I correctly understanding that Corbyn is the "wildly left" guy who doesn't know how to compromise and is causing chaos and the more moderate folks want someone who can better agree with the conservatives? More like better agree with the country. Guys like Corbyn were left behind by the majority of the country in the 80s. Labour had a civil war and split into two parties, "Old" Labour and the SDP. "Old" Labour got defeated four times in a row and remade itself as "New" Labour, marginalizing folks like Corbyn who are more old than new. The country hates May but Corbyn doesn't appeal to the majority of people either which is why his party keeps trying to stab him in the back. After those two labour elections and this general election, probably time to reconsider the appeal of this brand of the left in today's context, isn't it
Labour still didn't win they did as well as Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour Government. I wouldn't call that popular.
|
On June 12 2017 19:44 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 12 2017 04:15 KwarK wrote:On June 12 2017 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2017 21:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 21:06 Zaros wrote:On June 11 2017 20:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 15:23 KwarK wrote:
No, Corbyn cannot be Prime Minister. He lost the election, and pretty decisively. The fact that Theresa May didn't win it doesn't change that. Corbyn cannot govern without a new election.
He's just hoping that people will conclude that May's defeat is his triumph. 250 MPs does not a government make. He actually can, but it relies on the conservatives being unable to form a government and Labour being ready to take over by the deadline. Its possible, but 99.9999% not going to happen. His only hope is that some unhappy tories refuse to allow May to make a deal with the DUP, but I can't see it personally. In that situation he would be in government for 5 minutes before his queen speech didn't get passed and a new election would be called automatically. Absolutely right. I'm disagreeing with Labour's stance right now to be honest. Corbyn at this point wants chaos, and seems to be playing the Littlefinger role. Create as much damage in the tory party as possible by any means possible in the hope of gaining power. Its really not what the country needs right now. We need a parliament that can get decisions made and Labour should be thinking about how to play a part in that. Am I correctly understanding that Corbyn is the "wildly left" guy who doesn't know how to compromise and is causing chaos and the more moderate folks want someone who can better agree with the conservatives? More like better agree with the country. Guys like Corbyn were left behind by the majority of the country in the 80s. Labour had a civil war and split into two parties, "Old" Labour and the SDP. "Old" Labour got defeated four times in a row and remade itself as "New" Labour, marginalizing folks like Corbyn who are more old than new. The country hates May but Corbyn doesn't appeal to the majority of people either which is why his party keeps trying to stab him in the back. After those two labour elections and this general election, probably time to reconsider the appeal of this brand of the left in today's context, isn't it Labour still didn't win they did as well as Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour Government. I wouldn't call that popular.
From where I stand it seems hard to argue that other visions of the left would have done better or do fit Britain more today when you have asked Labour members twice whether they'd rather have another more centrist representant and they came back with a resounding no both times, when you have had elections with two leaders from the centrist side of Labour in recent memory and they both lost a bunch of seats, and when on top of that Corbyn got so much of the demographic that typically favors Labour but doesn't vote a lot to show up for him this time.
I also think it's relevant that May beat Corbyn basically with a united front, very few people voted UKIP this time they strategically voted with Tory a lot, while on the other side you have leftwing people voting Lib Dem because it makes more sense against the Tories in their constituency, and you also have the SNP which is not too different from Labour in policies if my understanding is correct (it's probably not that simple but you get the idea)...
|
|
|
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Well its very interesting now as basically unless all conservative MPs plus DUP MPs agree to that it wont ever get passed for it to be that.
So gonna take forever but if anything it will be alot more transparent now as to what the deal is
|
On June 12 2017 19:44 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 12 2017 04:15 KwarK wrote:On June 12 2017 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2017 21:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 21:06 Zaros wrote:On June 11 2017 20:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2017 15:23 KwarK wrote:
No, Corbyn cannot be Prime Minister. He lost the election, and pretty decisively. The fact that Theresa May didn't win it doesn't change that. Corbyn cannot govern without a new election.
He's just hoping that people will conclude that May's defeat is his triumph. 250 MPs does not a government make. He actually can, but it relies on the conservatives being unable to form a government and Labour being ready to take over by the deadline. Its possible, but 99.9999% not going to happen. His only hope is that some unhappy tories refuse to allow May to make a deal with the DUP, but I can't see it personally. In that situation he would be in government for 5 minutes before his queen speech didn't get passed and a new election would be called automatically. Absolutely right. I'm disagreeing with Labour's stance right now to be honest. Corbyn at this point wants chaos, and seems to be playing the Littlefinger role. Create as much damage in the tory party as possible by any means possible in the hope of gaining power. Its really not what the country needs right now. We need a parliament that can get decisions made and Labour should be thinking about how to play a part in that. Am I correctly understanding that Corbyn is the "wildly left" guy who doesn't know how to compromise and is causing chaos and the more moderate folks want someone who can better agree with the conservatives? More like better agree with the country. Guys like Corbyn were left behind by the majority of the country in the 80s. Labour had a civil war and split into two parties, "Old" Labour and the SDP. "Old" Labour got defeated four times in a row and remade itself as "New" Labour, marginalizing folks like Corbyn who are more old than new. The country hates May but Corbyn doesn't appeal to the majority of people either which is why his party keeps trying to stab him in the back. After those two labour elections and this general election, probably time to reconsider the appeal of this brand of the left in today's context, isn't it Labour still didn't win they did as well as Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour Government. I wouldn't call that popular.
In terms of seats yes, but Corbyn got a bigger share of the vote than Brown ever did.
On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
At the moment their strategy appears to be "Not showing up"
|
On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender.
|
On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
The same as before the election. A lot of empty rhetoric and throwing goodwill down the drain.
|
On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender.
Behind all the tough talk, there's a great many EU companies that thrive on U.K. commerce. They're going to put the screws in EU bureaucrats if they aim for a deal the UK will reject. The EU sells more to the UK than the reverse.
Then we get to see how the current list of de facto principles last over the next decade or couple of decades.
|
On June 13 2017 04:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender. Behind all the tough talk, there's a great many EU companies that thrive on U.K. commerce. They're going to put the screws in EU bureaucrats if they aim for a deal the UK will reject. The EU sells more to the UK than the reverse. Then we get to see how the current list of de facto principles last over the next decade or couple of decades.
Given how often here it is mentioned that supposedly Germany is leading the EU alone...
The were a decent number of large Germany business meetings/conventions, where the German top companies were asked on their stance regarding Brexit negotiations.
The answer was always the same: Use the full power of the EU. Don't give in to bullshit and if this means some losses for the companies, this is completely acceptaple, because they are playing the long game.
But hey... we already had this story with the Russia sanctions. Where everyone was like "Surely the big companies will tell the government to stop, because there are business interests at stake" and what actually happened was the opposite for exactly the same reasons.
|
The EU may sell more to the UK in absolute terms but it really is the relative figures that matter. Trade will be impacted but I wouldn't bet on the effect on particular corporations to be so great that they put a whole lot of resources in trying to lobby 27 nations with veto power. In importing stuff from the US and China my main obstacle is shipping time and cost over tariffs which aren't that significant.
|
On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender.
Tell that to the families that are dependent on jobs generated from exports to be able to put food on the table, or to the kids in Northern Ireland who don't need to be afraid of their school bus to explode anymore because of the open border.
Sure, leaving without a deal rather than a bad deal would be great for some, but it would mess up a lot of lives.
Edit: gramnar
|
hit quote instead of edit 
|
On June 13 2017 04:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender. Behind all the tough talk, there's a great many EU companies that thrive on U.K. commerce. They're going to put the screws in EU bureaucrats if they aim for a deal the UK will reject. The EU sells more to the UK than the reverse. Then we get to see how the current list of de facto principles last over the next decade or couple of decades. Companies tend not to have the same kind of influence as they do over in USA in European countries. Afterall, if they did those British companies would had used their influence to ensure that leaving the EU would not be a possibility. Whether it is UK or other countries in the EU, leaving does not suit most companies.
|
On June 13 2017 08:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:18 Danglars wrote:On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender. Behind all the tough talk, there's a great many EU companies that thrive on U.K. commerce. They're going to put the screws in EU bureaucrats if they aim for a deal the UK will reject. The EU sells more to the UK than the reverse. Then we get to see how the current list of de facto principles last over the next decade or couple of decades. Companies tend not to have the same kind of influence as they do over in USA in European countries. Afterall, if they did those British companies would had used their influence to ensure that leaving the EU would not be a possibility. Whether it is UK or other countries in the EU, leaving does not suit most companies.
I'm not talking about the national government influence, I'm talking supra-national government influence. You can only punish your own companies to pull the EU through a nation's exit for so long. Eventually it will be felt in revenues and jobs that impact both companies and citizens (But at least the UK will suffer too!!). Maybe Germany is enough behind the retaliatory theory to make a bad choice this time around, but being the thug here will have intermediate and long term consequences.
|
It's not just Germany being behind it or not. Truth is that there are multiple parties in the EU that simply feel that giving any form of leeway to the UK is dangerous. East Europe is chock full of such hardliners. The path of least resistance is simply to return to WTO rules.
|
On June 13 2017 08:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 04:18 Danglars wrote:On June 12 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:On June 12 2017 22:15 Laurens wrote:
So Brexit negotiations start next week. What will be the UK strategy in the wake of this election? Still "No deal is better than a bad deal"?
I don't think they really have too many options at this point. The EU looks like it feels that a hardline position is the only one it can take without compromising its "principles" (they're not wrong) and it's true that it's better to leave without a deal than basically accept terms of surrender. Behind all the tough talk, there's a great many EU companies that thrive on U.K. commerce. They're going to put the screws in EU bureaucrats if they aim for a deal the UK will reject. The EU sells more to the UK than the reverse. Then we get to see how the current list of de facto principles last over the next decade or couple of decades. Companies tend not to have the same kind of influence as they do over in USA in European countries. Afterall, if they did those British companies would had used their influence to ensure that leaving the EU would not be a possibility. Whether it is UK or other countries in the EU, leaving does not suit most companies.
I'd say companies have more influence here on policy making, but they're also bound to some sort of social contract. In the US the government will actually quite heavily fine and attack business if they pull shady stuff, in Europe that's unusual. Business in Europe is more state linked and you'll largely see cooperation, just look at the recent VW emissions scandal.
In return though they're largely to expected to behave responsibly and the kind of bribery and private funding of legislators is something that's not regularly happening.
|
And regarding "No deal is better than a bad deal", afaik that isn't on the table with the DUP. I am pretty sure that they are absolutely not fine with anything not involving an open border in ireland. That is the problem when you gamble away your majority in an bullshit attempt to get a bigger one, you have to compromise.
And all this time that you waste on constant internal bickering leaves you with less time to negotiate. At this rate, it is gonna be 2019 and you haven't got anything done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
