EPTBecause May doesn't know what to do with Brexit the Cabinet, civil service and back bench MPs are all trying to pull her in 30 different directions and she seems not to want to make a decision clearly in any direction for fear of being removed. I think if she is removed or sucks it up and makes a decision either way it won't look so bad.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 408
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Because May doesn't know what to do with Brexit the Cabinet, civil service and back bench MPs are all trying to pull her in 30 different directions and she seems not to want to make a decision clearly in any direction for fear of being removed. I think if she is removed or sucks it up and makes a decision either way it won't look so bad. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 04 2018 09:41 Zaros wrote: I dont think its a big crises of our democratic institutions like you seem to be suggesting, its the unfortunate consequence of the conservative party not really thinking its election for leader through properly. If brexit was to be delivered coherently you needed someone who believed, voted and knows what they want to do with it unfortunately the party elected someone with none of those followed by a botched election loosing any parliamentary leeway. Because May doesn't know what to do with Brexit the Cabinet, civil service and back bench MPs are all trying to pull her in 30 different directions and she seems not to want to make a decision clearly in any direction for fear of being removed. I think if she is removed or sucks it up and makes a decision either way it won't look so bad. I think what you're describing IS a crisis of our democratic institutions though. We have an electorate that is enormously divided over what they want on a huge range of different issues and no real outlet to express that division due to FPTP - causing May to lose her parliamentary majority (though even if she maintained it the decisions she made would have been far from consented to democratically). We have a system that places all the power in the hands of the executive, until they have a small enough majority that all the power is placed in the hands of 30 Europhobe backbencher, or 10 DUP MPs. We have a fundamentally unreformed second chamber that is unable to do anything more than tut disapprovingly at legislation coming through, but is ultimately powerless. If Gove, or Johnson, or (god forbid) Mogg were PM then none of these facts would be substantially different despite their belief in Brexit, because the problem in our country is institutional rather than just down to May. I think a strong argument can be made that institutional reform still wouldn't answer the questions this country faces with regard to the EU, but it certainly would help. It's all well and good voting to take back control, but the democratic structures in this country mean that ultimately we have never had it in the first place. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
While it might seem that the government is being held hostage by the DUP or the Eurosceptics (don't be inflammatory and don't forget the Eurofriendlies.) If May actually had her own position rather than sitting on the fence and being open to persuasion then I think these people would quiet down on all sides because then they can only rebel and they know they would cause a leadership election or government collapse and then get the blame. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On the one hand we have a need for a majority consensus government that can actually govern, on the other we have competing minority interests. Professional politicians actually negotiating in backrooms and deciding what they can win for each of their supporters sounds like an improvement to me. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 04 2018 10:22 Zaros wrote: I mean if you want to lose control of your government then go ahead and get rid of FPTP and then every single government will be coalition with backroom deals between politicians trading policies. The 2nd chamber is a revising chamber even if it had reform to make it elected It shouldn't change its role. While it might seem that the government is being held hostage by the DUP or the Eurosceptics (don't be inflammatory and don't forget the Eurofriendlies.) If May actually had her own position rather than sitting on the fence and being open to persuasion then I think these people would quiet down on all sides because then they can only rebel and they know they would cause a leadership election or government collapse and then get the blame. Ignoring the fact that 2 of the last 3 governments have been coalition governments, people have already lost control of their parties - unless you want to argue the Conservative party represents anything more than the lesser of two evils to many of the people that voted for it (which even then is a group that is a plurality and also a group that is quite possibly smaller than the total number of people who didn't vote at all). I think you're substantially underestimating the power of a group who actively did choose dogma over government between 1997 and 2005, and assuming the DUP also will not choose pandering to their Irish voters over propping up the Conservatives should the choice have to be made. I agree with your general point that other systems have problems, but like I said that's part of an argument as to the broader issues democratic societies face as well as the difficulty democracy encounters in solving those issues. A different leader won't help because Brexit won't help. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On February 04 2018 10:35 kollin wrote: Ignoring the fact that 2 of the last 3 governments have been coalition governments, people have already lost control of their parties - unless you want to argue the Conservative party represents anything more than the lesser of two evils to many of the people that voted for it (which even then is a group that is a plurality and also a group that is quite possibly smaller than the total number of people who didn't vote at all). I think you're substantially underestimating the power of a group who actively did choose dogma over government between 1997 and 2005, and assuming the DUP also will not choose pandering to their Irish voters over propping up the Conservatives should the choice have to be made. I agree with your general point that other systems have problems, but like I said that's part of an argument as to the broader issues democratic societies face as well as the difficulty democracy encounters in solving those issues. A different leader won't help because Brexit won't help. Well you argue against brexit then which seems to be the key theme on this forum, fair enough everyone has a view but if politicians ignore the referendum or try to minimise the "damage" by leaving only in name then there will be far worse problems for democracy on the horizon. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 04 2018 19:00 Zaros wrote: Well you argue against brexit then which seems to be the key theme on this forum, fair enough everyone has a view but if politicians ignore the referendum or try to minimise the "damage" by leaving only in name then there will be far worse problems for democracy on the horizon. I'm not saying Brexit should be reversed, I'm saying that it will solve none of the problems the UK faces, and certainly just exacerbate some of them. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On February 04 2018 20:50 kollin wrote: I'm not saying Brexit should be reversed, I'm saying that it will solve none of the problems the UK faces, and certainly just exacerbate some of them. It should be. They should simply state that they misinformed the public and the decision was a wrong one. It's not like the country's credibility could sink any lower. An advisory referendrum is not binding, and the tories constantly spewing "the will of the people" is a complete joke. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 07 2018 08:48 MyTHicaL wrote: It should be. They should simply state that they misinformed the public and the decision was a wrong one. It's not like the country's credibility could sink any lower. An advisory referendrum is not binding, and the tories constantly spewing "the will of the people" is a complete joke. You've missed my point. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
news.sky.com 'The paper looks at the possible hit to GDP over the next decade-and-a-half from Britain leaving the EU, compared with the UK remaining full members of the bloc. Overall, the UK is predicted to suffer a 1.5% drop in GDP while remaining in the EU's single market via the European Economic Area (EEA), a 5% drop if it agrees a free trade deal, and an 8% drop if Britain leaves the EU without a deal and reverts to trading on World Trade Organisation terms.' Realistically, anything but staying in the single market would mean a material cut in living standards, long term. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On February 08 2018 06:40 Zaros wrote: Yes the same treasury bullshit forecasts as before That's with more data points than two years ago, a largely sympathetic government, and details : up to 16% hit in the North East. Wonder what these people think when 'the pound in their pocket' gets whacked to that extent. It's not gonna be a positive, that's for sure. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 08 2018 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What precisely is your point? You say that there is a crisis in our democratic institutions, but you are zigzagging across a broad range of issues. So please be clear and direct us towards your prefered avenue of debate. My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit. As often happens on the internet, that discussion then got mauled by different posters into the more boring 'is Brexit good or bad, should we reverse it or not?'. My argument there is that without reform of our democratic institutions, whether Brexit happens or not to specifically 'take back control' is irrelevant, because this reform is the most important thing that could happen. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
The rest of your post is irrelevant. So tell us, what are these democratic structures you refer to, how is Brexit being handled, and how are they unable to handle it? So can you just answer the question please. What is precisely your point? Without the empty soundbites. Whatever is your intended avenue of thought, the discussion of whatever you thought we would be discussing changed prom your preference because what you wrote is so woefully unspecific, it can be interpreted in any number of ways. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On February 08 2018 08:39 kollin wrote: My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit. As often happens on the internet, that discussion then got mauled by different posters into the more boring 'is Brexit good or bad, should we reverse it or not?'. My argument there is that without reform of our democratic institutions, whether Brexit happens or not to specifically 'take back control' is irrelevant, because this reform is the most important thing that could happen. So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On February 09 2018 05:42 MyTHicaL wrote: So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point. House of Lords reform was just a few years ago. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 08 2018 09:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote: No "My point is that our democratic structures are evidently unable to handle Brexit." is not precise. It describes nothing. Evidently, you don't understand what evident means. The rest of your post is irrelevant. So tell us, what are these democratic structures you refer to, how is Brexit being handled, and how are they unable to handle it? So can you just answer the question please. What is precisely your point? Without the empty soundbites. Whatever is your intended avenue of thought, the discussion of whatever you thought we would be discussing changed prom your preference because what you wrote is so woefully unspecific, it can be interpreted in any number of ways. My point is our democracy, in its current form, isn't working very well and needs reform. I don't know what that reform should be, because it's a very difficult questions to answer, but I think it's necessary and that is clear because of their failure to actually handle something like Brexit. The minority government, the fact both parties won 86% of the vote on a hard Brexit platform when much less than that is in favour of it, the 30 or so Eurosceptic MPs who are able to entirely dictate the governments agenda, all show this. The reason we even HAD an election in 2017 was because May saw a chance to increase her majority so substantially that she'd have enough backbenchers to do exactly what she wanted. Even that in itself shows a problem with our democratic institutions, because it underlines the absolute power of the executive should they return a big enough majority (which can be done on about 35% on the vote, as Blair showed). | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On February 09 2018 05:42 MyTHicaL wrote: So you think a discussion based around a need to reform the democratic institutions is more interesting? When was the last reform? You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there has been one for a very very long time. And a blanket statement of "we must reform our democratic instiutions" is the definition of vague. You think it would be beneficial to reform them in what way exactly? "We need change" is not really a jumping off point. I think it's the more pertinent question, because Brexit won't address the 'take back control' Brexiteers without some sort of reform, and it's beneficial for Remainers in and of itself. That I don't know what those reforms should be (I have opinions but I'm honestly unsure) is not evidence that I'm wrong, but that it's a complex question that has arisen out of a complex situation. And yeah, there was HoL reform in 1997, election reform in 2010 (though that turned out to be entirely ineffective). | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On February 09 2018 18:30 KwarK wrote: House of Lords reform was just a few years ago. 21 Years ago. Thanks for the contribution. | ||
| ||
