EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 509
| 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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7969 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
edit: bit short. Doesn't matter what parliament voted on, they just need to stall. The default is leaving on the 12th. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21377 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:26 Plansix wrote: the era?The political rhetoric of the era seems to be "Blame a foreign nation/people/immigrants for BLANK" to get elected and then blame the vague elite/establishment when nothing improves. It makes elections hard when one side runs on political fantasy. Blaming outsiders has been a thing for as long as humans have interacted with one another. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:28 Gorsameth wrote: the era? Blaming outsiders has been a thing for as long as humans have interacted with one another. And after the GEOM unites us we’ll just learn to hate the xenos. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21377 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:27 Excludos wrote: Revoking art 50 is unlikely to get the votes needed. The option lost Wednesday by 109 votes.So if all the (one) deals have been voted down, no-deal has been voted down, and there's not enough time for anything else, then the only option left is to pull art 50, no? | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:07 m4ini wrote: Oh. Okay. I must've missed that in the last two and a half years, and especially in the last few months, how the vast majority seems to be aware of "what's required", because every single time they had the option to make any difference, they didn't do it. My bad i suppose. And as a sidenote, while there are morons in any government, in the UK it's the majority. On top of that, to point out how far off the UK is, words like "traitor", "betrayal", "my grandparents didn't [..]" simply don't exist in the political world elsewhere (not sure about france, granted). And it's not just some offbeat fringe ultra using these words. Lastly, i judge UK politicians by their actions. Not that it'd be any better or worse than judging them by the ramblings of Nigel Dudds. I understand people are frustrated with the inability for parliament to make a decision buy really, what we've seen in the UK over the last two years would have been the case in any other country in similar circumstances. A government that only commands a minority that tries to ram through a decision with zero regards for the opposition isn't SUPPOSED to have it's way. That true for UK and Sweden alike. You have to build a majority by making compromises, there's no other way around it. And May has made no attempt to compromise, zero, nill, none. The Parliament and the opposition wouldn't be doing its job if they just let her have her way. Parliament has so far had one(!) day to build a consensus in two years and that day was a start of a process over two or three days. As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Tories and Labour alike aren't used to govern with a majority. They aren't used to being forced to make deals with the opposition and that's a big reason why you are where you are today. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:38 Longshank wrote: I understand people are frustrated with the inability for parliament to make a decision buy really, what we've seen in the UK over the last two years would have been the case in any other country in similar circumstances. A government that only commands a minority that tries to ram through a decision with zero regards for the opposition isn't SUPPOSED to have it's way. That true for UK and Sweden alike. You have to build a majority by making compromises, there's no other way around it. And May has made no attempt to compromise, zero, nill, none. The Parliament and the opposition wouldn't be doing its job if they just let her have her way. Parliament has so far had one(!) day to build a consensus in two years and that day was a start of a process over two or three days. As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Tories and Labour alike aren't used to govern with a majority. They aren't used to being forced to make deals with the opposition and that's a big reason why you are where you are today. True, but Corbyn’s Labour Party has also shown no interest in participation because they’re terrified of what being forced to take an actual stance will do to them politically. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:38 Longshank wrote: I understand people are frustrated with the inability for parliament to make a decision buy really, what we've seen in the UK over the last two years would have been the case in any other country in similar circumstances. A government that only commands a minority that tries to ram through a decision with zero regards for the opposition isn't SUPPOSED to have it's way. That true for UK and Sweden alike. You have to build a majority by making compromises, there's no other way around it. And May has made no attempt to compromise, zero, nill, none. The Parliament and the opposition wouldn't be doing its job if they just let her have her way. Parliament has so far had one(!) day to build a consensus in two years and that day was a start of a process over two or three days. As far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Tories and Labour alike aren't used to govern with a majority. They aren't used to being forced to make deals with the opposition and that's a big reason why you are where you are today. First of all, you leave out the snap election that hilariously backfired. That's number one. And, of course, no. A government is supposed to compromise to get a result. They don't. Like, i'm not sure what you're trying to argue other than "well our politicians acted shitty, but they're not shitty". May i remind you that half the parliament is basically the government apart from the "traitors"? And no, they shouldn't just "let her have her way", but it's also not her job to constantly try to please parliament if literally nothing comes from there either. I hear you say "well two or three days process" - how long is this going on? They "seized" power what, a week before crashing out? I'm not sure myself, i might be mistaken: but i'm pretty sure the Tories had the majority in parliament before said snap election. If they hadn't, they were very close to that. Also not being used to govern with a majority would indicate that they usually are forced to make deals. Not that they wouldn't be able to. edit: i assume you meant minority, coming to think of it. The only way anything you said could be remotely correct is if they come to a conclusion on monday, which i have my doubts about. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:50 m4ini wrote: First of all, you leave out the snap election that hilariously backfired. That's number one. And, of course, no. A government is supposed to compromise to get a result. They don't. Like, i'm not sure what you're trying to argue other than "well our politicians acted shitty, but they're not shitty". May i remind you that half the parliament is basically the government apart from the "traitors"? And no, they shouldn't just "let her have her way", but it's also not her job to constantly try to please parliament if literally nothing comes from there either. I hear you say "well two or three days process" - how long is this going on? They "seized" power what, a week before crashing out? I'm not sure myself, i might be mistaken: but i'm pretty sure the Tories had the majority in parliament before said snap election. If they hadn't, they were very close to that. Also not being used to govern with a majority would indicate that they usually are forced to make deals. Not that they wouldn't be able to. edit: i assume you meant minority, coming to think of it. The only way anything you said could be remotely correct is if they come to a conclusion on monday, which i have my doubts about. Cameron left May a very solid majority. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:50 m4ini wrote: First of all, you leave out the snap election that hilariously backfired. That's number one. And, of course, no. A government is supposed to compromise to get a result. They don't. Like, i'm not sure what you're trying to argue other than "well our politicians acted shitty, but they're not shitty". May i remind you that half the parliament is basically the government apart from the "traitors"? And no, they shouldn't just "let her have her way", but it's also not her job to constantly try to please parliament if literally nothing comes from there either. I hear you say "well two or three days process" - how long is this going on? They "seized" power what, a week before crashing out? I'm not sure myself, i might be mistaken: but i'm pretty sure the Tories had the majority in parliament before said snap election. If they hadn't, they were very close to that. Also not being used to govern with a majority would indicate that they usually are forced to make deals. Not that they wouldn't be able to. edit: i assume you meant minority, coming to think of it. The only way anything you said could be remotely correct is if they come to a conclusion on monday, which i have my doubts about. The snap election is completely irrelevant, what matters is what it lead to. If there was a majority or not before the election makes no difference. It isn't her job to constantly please the all the opposition but it is her job to please a big enough portion of the opposition to build a majority. It literally is, and it is the oppositions duty to stop the Government if it does not. A minority Government isn't necessarily a bad thing(hence the snap election wasn't a mistake by Parliament), but it can not and isn't supposed to be able to, act like it's done over the last two years. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9022 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:28 Gorsameth wrote: the era? Blaming outsiders has been a thing for as long as humans have interacted with one another. There has been somewhat of a flare up recently, in Eastern Europe parties went from accusing eachother of being communists to accusing one side of working for Soros and the other of working for Putin | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On March 30 2019 02:45 KwarK wrote: True, but Corbyn’s Labour Party has also shown no interest in participation because they’re terrified of what being forced to take an actual stance will do to them politically. I'm in no way praising how Corbyn has acted during all of this, and I can only hope he's replaced for a GE(unlikely) and even more so if it comes to a second referendum. I've been very impressed by Keir Starmer at the dispatch box but I know very little about him. Where does he stand on the political scale compared to Corbyn? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
He's also remaining in the fantasy land of negotiating a new deal, getting rid of any personal responsibility by calling for a general election. The ms Brexit continues to be rudderless. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 30 2019 03:20 Longshank wrote: The snap election is completely irrelevant, what matters is what it lead to. If there was a majority or not before the election makes no difference. It isn't her job to constantly please the all the opposition but it is her job to please a big enough portion of the opposition to build a majority. It literally is, and it is the oppositions duty to stop the Government if it does not. A minority Government isn't necessarily a bad thing(hence the snap election wasn't a mistake by Parliament), but it can not and isn't supposed to be able to, act like it's done over the last two years. Of course it's relevant if we're judging competence of politicians, wtf? And it doesn't matter if there was a majority or not beforehand, what? You do understand how (comparatively) easy Brexit could've been with a majority in parliament? The elections were called (they weren't just elections, they were snap-elections) because Tories thought they could get an even bigger majority. It's like arguing that it doesn't matter that you put a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, it's the bullet that matters. That's.. an "interesting" viewpoint. You realise that the majority of people in the world wouldn't even know the DUP if it wasn't for that humongous misjudgement? Because they wouldn't be needed? And no. It's not her job to make concessions to the point where it's literally the losing party making decisions, to argue for that means that you haven't understood how politics work at all. All "the opposition" did is simply demanding "their" version of Brexit - or of course no Brexit at all. That's less a flaw of "parliament", you could argue that it's an inherent flaw in the British political system that's virtually a two party system. Yes, they're the ruling minority (a fault of their own doing, with no necessity at all for it), and they're supposed to compromise. Explain to me, how exactly is "single market or bust" the compromise to "Mays Deal"? To be very clear here: it's not the job of the opposition to obstruct everything the "winning party" is trying to do. They're as responsible to find a compromise as the government is. What you're saying sounds all great, but has zero meaning in what actually happens. Except that you're calling the snap election irrelevant, which is interesting since that was probably the point where Brexit became inevitably a shitshow. edit: that being said: you have it right with Starmer, i'm in the same boat. He seems, from the little i know, like a decent politician. But, he doesn't seem to be a decent speaker, there's a lot of stuttering when he's answering to things. Best thing to happen (that's me in Lala Land for a change) would be Corbyn resigns and goes away, Bercow becomes leader of Labour. And PM. I'm sorry, i just love that guy. And the rest of the world does too. At least from what i've heard. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On the minority ruling bit, I'm sorry but you are wrong. It's the governments job to govern and the oppositions job to oppose(clues are in the title). Now you could make a moral case IF the government had been trying their best to compromise and work towards an agreement but they have made zero such efforts. That process does not start by the opposition making concessions, it isn't their job to govern. edit: to expand a bit, a government that loses a majority is expected to resign. If it does not, the Parliament has the means to remove it. What we have had now is the extraordinary situation where a sizable portion of MPs keep voting the government down but blocks the one mechanism to remove it due to party political reasons. And they have their reason to do so, but essentially it's a failure of the political system. Not by MPs collectively. What I've seen is brilliant MPs from both sides of the isle trying their darnest to navigate the country out of a crisis caused by a parliamentary system that has fundamentally and utterly collapsed. This way of making sweeping statements of MPs as incompetent, crooks or "fake wastebags" that we see from media and public alike is such a lazy, and to use a fashion word populistic, way of thinking without trying to understand the complexity and underlying issue of the situation. | ||
|
Ingvar
Russian Federation421 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On another note there’s some cognitive parallel between Bercow as saviour and Muller as saviour that would play out in reality in the exact same way. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On the minority ruling bit, I'm sorry but you are wrong. It's the governments job to govern and the oppositions job to oppose(clues are in the title). Now you could make a moral case IF the government had been trying their best to compromise and work towards an agreement but they have made zero such efforts. That process does not start by the opposition making concessions, it isn't their job to govern. I'm actually fully correct. What you're missing in your analysis is the political landscape in the UK, where coalitions are pretty much impossible. By your idea, a government would be inherently paralysed in the UK. In case you haven't noticed, a minority government in other countries doesn't "find compromises" on every decision to be made; they look around who they're somewhat compatible with and enter a coalition. Which in case of the UK simply doesn't work - they tried. That's why the DUP is even known to people outside ireland, and even with these people (somewhat, not really) on board, they've still got less votes than they had before the snap election. Parties run on manifestos. Both the ruling and the opposing party. There's only so much compromise you can do, that's why in germany things like "Schwarz Rot", "Ampel" or "Jamaica" (Black/Red, Traffic light, Jamaica - corresponding party colours) exist. Because otherwise you can't get shit done. Literally. Like, who in their right mind thinks that it's "correct" to have drawn out discussions over weeks over any decision, tiptoeing around fringe groups, trying to please both hardliners of your party, and the more liberal ones (and vice versa in the opposition)? You can't be serious. What I've seen is brilliant MPs from both sides of the isle trying their darnest to navigate the country out of a crisis caused by a parliamentary system that has fundamentally and utterly collapsed. This way of making sweeping statements of MPs as incompetent, crooks or "fake wastebags" that we see from media and public alike is such a lazy, and to use a fashion word populistic, way of thinking without trying to understand the complexity and underlying issue of the situation. Brilliant MPs? Who? You could argue that there's decent MPs, and i did in fact mention that myself, but brilliant? What kind of standard do you have? I haven't seen brilliance from anyone. Not a single one. An MP putting his country before party is decent, not brilliant. It's like arguing that your pharmacist is brilliant because he hasn't poisened you. Am i populistic? Not really, i didn't see myself offering an easy solution to this, did i? I don't get paid to solve the problem, but i sure as hell can criticise the cause for it. I might've gone a bit too far, but if i did, you're on the opposite side of the spectrum. What many MPs are trying is to get their party to win, with few outliers like Letwin who admittedly positively surprised me. He seemed genuinely interested in actually getting something done. That being said: that's not brilliant either. It's something i'd expect from all MPs. If you make "common sense" the baseline for brilliance, .. lol. No, not every MP does a shit job. But they're not doing a great one either, and basically every "visible" or "vocal" MP is bullshitting the second they open their mouths. Starting from pure incompetence to malicious lying. On another note there’s some cognitive parallel between Bercow as saviour and Muller as saviour that would play out in reality in the exact same way. Actually, i've made clear earlier that i think that this entire shitshow would've gone the exact same way under Bercow, just that it would've been more charming (few pages back). I don't think he's a saviour. I don't think that he'd do a better job than May, either. I do think that he'd do a better job than Johnson, but that is also applicable to pretty much all three of our cats and my favourite teaspoon. As a sidenote, i also think he'd do a better job than Corbyn. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
| ||
