Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 281 to 297 of 297
  1. #281
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,965
    If that's true then you're definitely far ahead of us in the political game!

  2. #282
    Author of 101 WWE Matches To See Before You Die Samuel 'Plan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    650
    I agree with Prime, re this dominating our political discourse for another couple of decades - but (and call this head in the sand if you like) I can't see it ending anywhere other than with us being in the EU, either 'still' or 'again,' be it through a second referendum, an outright revocation of Article 50 or a return to the fold after the inevitable crushing reality of leaving really sets in.

    Maybe I'm just hoping. Because I'm sure as hell frightened to death. We're seeing the government transparently lie and fail to be adequately and effectively taken to task over it. We're seeing reckless rhetoric increase in use, rather than decrease. We're getting blitzed with propaganda. The independence of the judiciary is already being turned into a normalised talking point by the press. It's really, really frightening.

  3. #283
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    It might end up with us still in, but I don't see them letting us back in, if we do leave. Not after the mess we've made for everyone. Not in our lifetime at least.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  4. #284
    Toubabo Koomi The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    On a Nightrain!
    Posts
    377
    Leaving with no deal sounds terrible. And Boris is apparently going to break the law to do so...

    Not a good example to lead by.
    “There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

  5. #285
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    He's certainly posturing as if he's going to do that. But at this kind of stage you don't know how much of anything is posture and how much they'll follow through on.

    Sam Gyimah joined the Lib Dems in the last few days. Another interesting appointment following in the wake of Phillip Lee, given that he was the guy who as universities minister started talking up that free speech at Universities thing, saying it's 'no right wing conspiracy', then it became apparent that everything he'd cited as 'evidence' was made up and he'd just uncritically related some student anecdotes rather than doing any work to establish the truth of what he was saying. So he's an interesting fit for the Lib Dems, to say the least. Then again, given their limited numbers maybe they are in no position to turn people like him and Lee down. You can't look a gift MP in the mouth when you have fewer than 20 yourself.

    I've heard it said in recent days that if the Tories could be turned off their current tack, there's enough evidence in Swinson's record that she'd be more likely to back a moderate Tory in the event of a hung parliament than a Corbyn-led Labour party. Though where exactly you find a moderate Tory after the Johnson cull is anybody's guess.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  6. #286
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,158
    Swinson got heckled for vetting, or rather not vetting, the incoming defectors well enough at the party conference. I suppose it depends on how you see it - are the Lib Dems being desperate to pick up bodies in Parliament, or are they actually taking care to keep within their own mission statement. Seems to me that some think it's more the former than the latter.

    Seems like we're still not offering any solution to the backstop agreement. What I'm really struggling with is this whole cloak and dagger approach from the Tories - you've got Raab this morning coming out and going 'oh, we've got ideas, but we're not actually going to tell you them because that hurts our negotiating position'. Which just seems ridiculous to me.

  7. #287
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    That right there is always the difference between grassroots and parliamentary parties. Grassroots are always more idealistic, parliament are always more pragmatic. I'm sure the response would be something like 'it's easier to get our mission statement across when there's more than a handful of us in the chamber'. But it doesn't make tough questions go away, especially as this is a party that is still rebuilding trust, really.

    Reminds me of the interesting case when Shaun Woodward crossed the floor to join New Labour, and they took him. Caused a major backlash and meant when he tried to move to a safe seat there was a left-wing challenge in the constituency. But even when there was a majority of almost 180, it was still seen as better to have the extra MP for 2 years and deal with the fallout than not. Of course you have to factor in New Labour/Old Labour politics into those divisions too, but it still makes for something interesting to think about.


    As for the Raab thing, I'm not sure anyone really believes they have ideas. Even the hardline surely must just believe this is a strategy and they're playing out the clock.....

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  8. #288
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    An update. One of the key planks of the government's argument is that this isn't a case for the courts to rule on - essentially repeating the argument of the English high court. What it reads like is this: if the Miller team can't provide evidence of an actual law that has been broken, it shouldn't really be considered a matter for the courts and instead just be one that has political oversight.

    Now - the latest development is that No. 10 are briefing that they expect to lose on that point, whether or not they lose the whole thing. So a significant moment if that comes to pass, and I don't imagine that they'd be managing expectations on something like this. I figure that they'd play up the rightness of their cause until they lost.

    But, all down to 11 judges at the end of the day. Have to wait and see. But still, significant movement.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  9. #289
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,158
    It's interesting the basic Government argument seems (I must admit, I'm skim reading the coverage a bit) to be that they've not broken a law - while the opposition isn't really arguing that they have, just that they're operating in a way to avoid scrutiny and acting in extremis.

  10. #290
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    It's an interesting argument really, that fine distinction between legality and constitutionality.

    From what I'm reading this could go either way. Interesting, given that the Miller case in 2017 (that Parliament and not the executive had to trigger article 50) went by 8 votes 3 - implies this could be a bit closer than that. I suppose that margin of error will give people arguing for parliamentary sovereignty some hope, though.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  11. #291
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    Man, when I say David Cameron is the worst Prime Minister in living memory, he seems to want to find more and more ways to go on and prove it. Has now voluntarily, without any prompting, gone and dropped the Palace into a political scandal by telling people he got them to intervene (ever so gently) in the Scottish indy ref of 2014.

    What a fucking turd that man is. How he ever thought he was capable of running a country I'll never know. Desperately sad he was able to convince so many people that he was ever anything more than he was (including, and I'll believe this to my dying day, Nick Clegg, who wrecked his own political career and came within a knife-edge of ruining his party because he trusted that man).

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  12. #292
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,158
    Oh yeah, Cameron was an absolute shit heap. People have probably retroactively seen him in a slightly kinder light given who's followed him, first complete ineptitude and second a buffoon, but he was an utter fucker.

  13. #293
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    I'm sure I've probably said something like this before, but I still see him as worse than what's followed because he caused it. He had pretty much clear water and put us in this mess. The people that followed have been 'worse', but they've had a much rougher deal.

    I suppose it's like a 'pound-for-pound, he's worse' kind of argument that I make when I say these things. Although even given his shit hand, Boris is running the risk of exceeding that at the moment. He needs a win, because if he doesn't get anywhere - if his sole legacy is to voluntarily give up his majority, have the courts say he misled the Queen and then resign, never to be seen in Downing St again - I mean, that'd be historically bad.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  14. #294
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,158
    Would Boris, if he resigned by (let's say) October 22nd, be the shortest non-temporary PM in UK history? I have a vague recollection of Brown being the shortest tenure since Douglas-Home in the 60s, but I think he nearly had a whole year. Johnson will be, what, under 90 days?

  15. #295
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    Yes, he would. I know that the current shortest tenure is held by George Canning, at 119 days, so Johnson would be still about a month short of that if he quits before October 31st.

    And it's worth pointing out that Canning neither quit nor was he forced out, but rather he died in office. So an unfair comparison in one key way, too.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  16. #296
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,965
    Is there a real chance of Boris going so soon?

  17. #297
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,698
    I suppose it all depends on what you consider a real chance. I'd say it's unlikely, but yes, there's a chance. Maybe a 1 in 5 shot?


    EDIT: Just to the above thing, Canning was obviously a long time ago. In modern politics, the only comparable length reigns (if Boris does go out very quickly) would be during the tumultuous reorganisation of the parties after WWI. Once Lloyd George lost in 1922, you have a run of short-lived PMs. Bonar Law (210 days), got very ill and was replaced with Stanley Baldwin (246 days) who lost enough seats to allow a Labour minority government under Ramsey McDonald (288 days).

    After that things stabilised, and both Baldwin and McDonald came back for lengthier terms after that, so I'm not sure if you'd really want to count them given they were PM for years if you take the subsequent terms into account. Bonar Law died within six months of leaving office so again, not really a fair comparison.

    If you want a single term for a PM bought down really by their own mismanagement in the modern era of politics, you have to look at Anthony Eden. Bought down by the Suez crisis after just 1 year, and 279 days. But obviously, he'd gave passed Alec Douglas-Home well before that.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •