Westminster Politics

[fergieisold]

Yep, because the Tories have never done anything like magicking up a £1bn bribe to the DUP...

Nothing to do with the opinion that the Conservatives are the more sensible option when it comes to the economy. You can argue about the impact of that on the less privileged.

Well as someone who saw the state of NHS mental health counselling under a liberal conservative government, I'll be sure to the tell the young starbucks worker who's mental health was constantly on a downward spiral due to being over worked(Resulting in her routinely cutting her own face)all about your aspiration and hard work.

Serious question - When you hear stories like the one I've just told(Austerity has killed over 100,000 people in the UK), what do you actually think ?

There's no conclusive evidence that austerity has caused 100,000 deaths. The Conservatives have been very poor on mental health in my opinion which is underfunded, hopefully this changes!

Yet spending has been increasing under the last 9 years of Conservative rule. Mainly because they reduced corporation tax for businesses and allow tax avoidance.

I guess you've not looked into it and just fall for catchphrases?

Spending without context means absolutely nothing.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

On the massive plus side she's (a) pro remain, (b) not Corbyn (c) not Johnson. That's worth 4-5% in the polls I'd say.

If you look at the last Lib Dem MANIFESTO, there is plenty of stuff in there that would appeal to left wingers.

The idea that a party is WHOLLY defined and directed by its leader is very dubious. ‘Influenced’ maybe. There is a very distinct difference.

We’ve just had May leading the Tories, and Corbyn still leads Labour, two cases in point. May would have remained in the EU & Corbyn would be out if it was a case of leader totally dictating policy.

I think the Lib Dems would be a sensible centre choice considering the alternatives currently. I don't agree with them on Brexit, otherwise they’d have my vote.

As regards the period in coalition government, they wanted electoral reform first and foremost and have done for decades hence the AV referendum as their main bargaining chip but yes they also recognised the fiscal debt left under Labour. If Labour won in 2010, how would the debt be now? A question that we will never know the answer to and a moot point.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Hopefully the start of the fall of the Tories.

And the rise of who, exactly?

 

[Adisa]

First comment since he was announced. It's fecking surreal. How have we got here?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Common sense politics assures citizens rights and adherence to the GFA. It'd be political suicide to unilaterally withdraw the former or break the latter.

There is no common sense, otherwise the Uk wouldn't be in this mess. The financial settlement thing is also common sense, it's just what the UK owe when they leave but it's the easiest thing to focus on by the Leavers and the Media to beat the EU with.

Just another part of the con. Convinced none of the so-called ardent leaver politicians actually want to leave - they're terrified of having to face the truth of post-Brexit Britain.

The WA is a tiny part of the beginning but they're too afraid to take the first step to disaster.
The EU should not accept an extension and then reality will finally bite.

 

[11101]

Yet spending has been increasing under the last 9 years of Conservative rule. Mainly because they reduced corporation tax for businesses and allow tax avoidance.

I guess you've not looked into it and just fall for catchphrases?

Another one who doesn't understand the difference between total spending and spending as a percentage of GDP, and probably not between debt and deficit either.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yeah you did. She'll be gone by easter, summer, autumn, xmas. That was you mate.

Doesn't sound like me - proof?

 

[Full bodied red]

First comment since he was announced. It's fecking surreal. How have we got here?

Too many Remainer politicians, from all parties, ignoring the result of the 2016 EU Referendum.

That contempt for the electorate was only ever going to be able to last so long, so now the UK has a weirdo PM, a group of lunatic opposition politicians, and the come back of UKIP with a different name.

Don't blame the people....

 

[Pexbo]

Too many Remainer politicians, from all parties, ignoring the result of the 2016 EU Referendum.

That contempt for the electorate was only ever going to be able to last so long, so now the UK has a weirdo PM, a group of lunatic opposition politicians, and the come back of UKIP with a different name.

Don't blame the people....

Too many politicians from all parties are ignoring the outright lies and criminal activities of the leave campaigns which played a huge part in tilting the result to a very narrow victory.

On top of that, the referendum was advisory and was not legally binding nor was there any details on how brexit should be delivered. It’s not up to a small handful of MPs to make that decision.

If there is going to be a confirmatory referendum on the concrete terms that have been agreed then you have to include remain as an option because people have to have the option to change their mind now they understand exactly what Brexit will mean rather than just voting on a wafty idea and baseless promises.

 

[TheGame]

The chief architect of the Brexit lies appointed to Government, you cannot make this up.

 

[Smores]

Too many Remainer politicians, from all parties, ignoring the result of the 2016 EU Referendum.

That contempt for the electorate was only ever going to be able to last so long, so now the UK has a weirdo PM, a group of lunatic opposition politicians, and the come back of UKIP with a different name.

Don't blame the people....

No one's ignoring the result of the referendum what utter trash. A deal has been achieved on instruction of the referendum and remainers want the public to confirm they actually want the outcome now it's clear what it looks like.

How is an additional question ignoring the first instruction?

 

[Smores]

That PMQ display was an utter disgrace to be honest by both sides. It's one of the times for reaching out and reconciliation yet both just insulted each other. May didn't even praise the house as is custom.

Politics is broke and it's going to get worse until Brexit is resolved.

 

[Full bodied red]

Too many politicians from all parties are ignoring the outright lies and criminal activities of the leave campaigns which played a huge part in tilting the result to a very narrow victory.

On top of that, the referendum was advisory and was not legally binding nor was there any details on how brexit should be delivered. It’s not up to a small handful of MPs to make that decision.

If there is going to be a confirmatory referendum on the concrete terms that have been agreed then you have to include remain as an option because people have to have the option to change their mind now they understand exactly what Brexit will mean rather than just voting on a wafty idea and baseless promises.

You know....Your post is just more Remainer bollocks.

Sure you're not a LibDem MP ?? Or Benn minor in disguise ??

Does the UK have a confirmatory public vote on how the Government as a whole and a small handful of designated Ministers will implement a manifesto policy every time the Governement of the day tries to implement that manifesto policy ??

EU supporters go on and on and on about the EU and its concept of Delegated Authority - you can't have it both ways.

 

[Full bodied red]

That PMQ display was an utter disgrace to be honest by both sides. It's one of the times for reaching out and reconciliation yet both just insulted each other. May didn't even praise the house as is custom.

Politics is broke and it's going to get worse until Brexit is resolved.

PMQs is still going on on my TV.

 

[Pexbo]

You know....Your post is just more Remainer bollocks.

Sure you're not a LibDem MP ?? Or Benn minor in disguise ??

Does the UK have a confirmatory public vote on how the Government as a whole and a small handful of designated Ministers will implement a manifesto policy every time the Governement of the day tries to implement that manifesto policy ??

EU supporters go on and on and on about the EU and its concept of Delegated Authority - you can't have it both ways.

A manifesto policy consists of a huge number of changes which are comparably much much smaller than Brexit, have less impact and are easily reversible by the next government.

 

[Foxbatt]

It sure would be a lot more "interesting" than Theresa May. I mean the comic factor. Didn't he once wear a turban to a Gurdwara and talked about selling alcohol to India and how he used to smuggle whisky bottles into India?

 

[Full bodied red]

A manifesto policy consists of a huge number of changes which are comparably much much smaller than Brexit, have less impact and are easily reversible by the next government.

I agree that most manifesto policies are not of the same magnitude.

But I think my point remains - there was no referendum to join the EU ( Common Market yes, nothing since ) despite Bliar promising that there would be, so at least the 2016 Referendum was one step better. And let's not forget, Cameron PROMISED he would respect the result.

Typical Politician - of course he didn't and started the past three years of madness which has now culminated in Johnson, of all people, as PM.

As I said - don't blame the people.

Anyway....Off to the beach now.....

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I agree that most manifesto policies are not of the same magnitude.

But I think my point remains - there was no referendum to join the EU ( Common Market yes, nothing since ) despite Bliar promising that there would be, so at least the 2016 Referendum was one step better. And let's not forget, Cameron PROMISED he would respect the result.

Typical Politician - of course he didn't and started the past three years of madness which has now culminated in Johnson, of all people, as PM.

As I said - don't blame the people.

Anyway....Off to the beach now.....

On the contrary , always blame the people. If a person's prejudices have been used by a politician to further their career then more fool them. Brexit for example will be entirely the fault of the people if it all goes to pot, they didn't have to listen to Farage and Johnson.

 

[nickm]

I agree that most manifesto policies are not of the same magnitude.

But I think my point remains - there was no referendum to join the EU ( Common Market yes, nothing since ) despite Bliar promising that there would be, so at least the 2016 Referendum was one step better. And let's not forget, Cameron PROMISED he would respect the result.

Typical Politician - of course he didn't and started the past three years of madness which has now culminated in Johnson, of all people, as PM.

As I said - don't blame the people.

Anyway....Off to the beach now.....

Not respect the result? The govt triggered article 50 and negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Eu. The brexiters didn’t like the WA and so it didn’t get thru parliament. Blame your mate Rees Mogg.

 

[finneh]

There is no common sense, otherwise the Uk wouldn't be in this mess. The financial settlement thing is also common sense, it's just what the UK owe when they leave but it's the easiest thing to focus on by the Leavers and the Media to beat the EU with.

Just another part of the con. Convinced none of the so-called ardent leaver politicians actually want to leave - they're terrified of having to face the truth of post-Brexit Britain.

The WA is a tiny part of the beginning but they're too afraid to take the first step to disaster.
The EU should not accept an extension and then reality will finally bite.

You're conflating the common sense of the electorate with political common sense. Politically speaking nothing thus far has gone against the principles of common sense. It was politically common sense for David Cameron to have a referendum in his manifesto, as it's arguable that he would not have won the election without it.

Citizens rights were never going to be an issue as it would be political suicide for any UK government to deny these rights. Likewise compromising the Irish border was never going to be an issue as any UK government trying to breach the BA would be committing political suicide. There would have been no great difficulties on these points as the resolution was common sense (if politicians know one thing it's self-interest and they certainly are not going to be turkey's voting for Xmas).

The financial settlement was the only real point for negotiation. It wasn't merely common sense as there were a variety of formulae that could be used to calculate the net of what was owed. The UK would have wanted the figure to be less than zero, whilst the EU reportedly wanted around €120m at first instance.

The problem has always been with sequencing. It's impossible to have a negotiation whereby you negotiate the price before you negotiate the product. Likewise it wouldn't have been possible to negotiate everything in 2 years. What should have occurred after the 2017 General Election* is that a cross party consensus should have been reached whereby the exit date should be agreed for the end of the Parliamentary term (2022). This would allow a 5 year period for all discussions to occur without the deadline looming imminently. The Irish backstop would not be an issue in these circumstance as the FTA would be negotiated prior to leaving the EU. Likewise the common sense parts of the "the financial settlement to commence trade negotiations", such as citizen's rights would be ironed out straight away.

In this scenario an actual negotiation can take place. The UK may choose to part with £150b, which would have the EU salivating; however they'd expect something far wider reaching than any other FTA they have with another country. This is where money would talk of course. My view is even the sacred 4 freedoms would be up for negotiation if the price were high enough.

*Either that or prior to Article 50 being triggered. From my understanding there's no legal reason why negotiations couldn't be undertaken prior to the triggering of Article 50.

 

[Strachans Cigar]

Too many politicians from all parties are ignoring the outright lies and criminal activities of the leave campaigns which played a huge part in tilting the result to a very narrow victory.

On top of that, the referendum was advisory and was not legally binding nor was there any details on how brexit should be delivered. It’s not up to a small handful of MPs to make that decision.

If there is going to be a confirmatory referendum on the concrete terms that have been agreed then you have to include remain as an option because people have to have the option to change their mind now they understand exactly what Brexit will mean rather than just voting on a wafty idea and baseless promises.

Another referendum on *how* we leave? Yeah sure. But remain as we are should not be on the ballot. The majority voted to leave in whatever guise. The question was clear enough. We voted out.

Was the European Economic Community of 1975 the same as the European Union of 2016?

Because that’s the last time we had a referendum on it. 41 years inbetween the two. Many EU constitutional changes since then that were not put directly to the people: Maastricht, Lisbon treaties etc, not necessarily approved by 50.1% of British voters?

Other members held referendums. So why didn’t we?

So no, Eurosceptics haven’t had that kind of direct say on the EEC/EU for four decades. On that basis, as I say, there should be no ‘remain as we are’ option. You can have another go to rejoin 41 years after we decide how we are leaving. Fairs fair & all that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You're conflating the common sense of the electorate with political common sense. Politically speaking nothing thus far has gone against the principles of common sense. It was politically common sense for David Cameron to have a referendum in his manifesto, as it's arguable that he would not have won the election without it.

Citizens rights were never going to be an issue as it would be political suicide for any UK government to deny these rights. Likewise compromising the Irish border was never going to be an issue as any UK government trying to breach the BA would be committing political suicide. There would have been no great difficulties on these points as the resolution was common sense (if politicians know one thing it's self-interest and they certainly are not going to be turkey's voting for Xmas).

The financial settlement was the only real point for negotiation. It wasn't merely common sense as there were a variety of formulae that could be used to calculate the net of what was owed. The UK would have wanted the figure to be less than zero, whilst the EU reportedly wanted around €120m at first instance.

The problem has always been with sequencing. It's impossible to have a negotiation whereby you negotiate the price before you negotiate the product. Likewise it wouldn't have been possible to negotiate everything in 2 years. What should have occurred after the 2017 General Election* is that a cross party consensus should have been reached whereby the exit date should be agreed for the end of the Parliamentary term (2022). This would allow a 5 year period for all discussions to occur without the deadline looming imminently. The Irish backstop would not be an issue in these circumstance as the FTA would be negotiated prior to leaving the EU. Likewise the common sense parts of the "the financial settlement to commence trade negotiations", such as citizen's rights would be ironed out straight away.

In this scenario an actual negotiation can take place. The UK may choose to part with £150b, which would have the EU salivating; however they'd expect something far wider reaching than any other FTA they have with another country. This is where money would talk of course. My view is even the sacred 4 freedoms would be up for negotiation if the price were high enough.

*Either that or prior to Article 50 being triggered. From my understanding there's no legal reason why negotiations couldn't be undertaken prior to the triggering of Article 50.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say except, the monetary settlement is peanuts in the grand scheme of things and the government know it. The EU knew what they were doing when they set the order of the timetable and they'd guessed correctly the attitude of the UK government's negotiating stance.
A FTA is not going to solve the GFA. What is incompatible is leaving the CU and SM and maintaining the GFA. Common sense means they you can't have both but both major parties are trying to say you can which is where the unicorns come in.
And I doubt if the 4 freedoms would ever be negotiable, there is no price for that.
If the WA is ever accepted, then the real problems of Brexit will kick in.

 

[nickm]

The issue is that some Lib Dems and centrists seem to want people to ignore Swinson's record because it would be remarkably convenient for them to do so. But by all accounts she was on the right of the Lib Dems and didn't merely participate in the coalition out of compromise alone but largely agreed with Tory austerity, even if she wasn't for its worst elements.

That's a bit of a PR disaster for a party who are trying to pitch themselves to Labour voters. Even as someone who understands and sympathises with Labour defectors who want a strong party in opposition to Brexit, anyone who's left-wing probably shouldn't be voting Lib Dem.

Not really. They are pitching themselves at Remain voters who might also be Labour voters - taking a strong stand against Brexit is the priority. Their record in government is going to be a secondary consideration while the country is on fire.

Fact is, Labour could nullify half the Lib Dem threat tomorrow if they got rid of Corbyn. But they'd rather navel gaze, indulge the old man, and build castles in the sky than actually do what it takes to win power.

 

[Sweet Square]

There's no conclusive evidence that austerity has caused 100,000 deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report

More than 130,000 deaths in the UK since 2012 could have been prevented if improvements in public health policy had not stalled as a direct result of austerity cuts, according to a hard-hitting analysis to be published this week.

The study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank finds that, after two decades in which preventable diseases were reduced as a result of spending on better education and prevention, there has been a seven-year “perfect storm” in which state provision has been pared back because of budget cuts, while harmful behaviours among people of all ages have increased.

Had progress been maintained at pre-2013 rates, around 131,000 lives could have been saved, the IPPR concludes. Despite promises made during the NHS’s 70th birthday celebrations last year to prioritise prevention, the UK is now only halfway up a table of OECD countries on its record for tackling preventable diseases.

Or even on the lower end, what about the UN report ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sal-credit-report-philip-alston-a8924576.html

The Conservatives have been very poor on mental health in my opinion which is underfunded, hopefully this changes!

And your reason for believe there will be more funding, considering the last decade ?

Look I get why people like yourself vote Tory, I'm asking you what you think of the outcomes of tory policy.

 

[nickm]

Another referendum on *how* we leave? Yeah sure. But remain as we are should not be on the ballot. The majority voted to leave in whatever guise. The question was clear enough. We voted out.

Was the European Economic Community of 1975 the same as the European Union of 2016?

Because that’s the last time we had a referendum on it. 41 years inbetween the two. Many EU constitutional changes since then that were not put directly to the people: Maastricht, Lisbon treaties etc, not necessarily approved by 50.1% of British voters?

Other members held referendums. So why didn’t we?

So no, Eurosceptics haven’t had that kind of direct say on the EEC/EU for four decades. On that basis, as I say, there should be no ‘remain as we are’ option. You can have another go to rejoin 41 years after we decide how we are leaving. Fairs fair & all that.

I see the point although I'm not sure it'd be practical given where we are now (rather than where we were 3 years ago). But even if it is was, there needs to be a soft brexit option around which a possible consensus could be formed and to which 'the 48% loser's consent' might be given. If it's not too late for that.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Without Brexit, the austerity measures would not have lasted as long. So much time and money has been wasted on Brexit, that everything else, the things that actually matter, have all taken a back seat.

 

[Sweet Square]

Without Brexit, the austerity measures would not have lasted as long. So much time and money has been wasted on Brexit, that everything else, the things that actually matter, have all taken a back seat.

Where are getting this from ?

Austerity was here before Brexit(Good argument to be made that austerity actually got the win for leave) and it will be here after Brexit. Unless there's a change in government.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Where are getting this from ?

Austerity was here before Brexit(Good argument to be made that austerity actually got the win for leave) and it will be here after Brexit. Unless there's a change in government.

I am not disputing that, but if there was no Brexit, then it would not have to continue for so long and other more pressing matters would have been concentrated on than this bollocks waste of time shit.

 

[Cheesy]

http://www.joswinson.org.uk/_scottishness_reflections_of_identity

Apparently Jo Swinson is Scottish. Who knew?

 

[Sweet Square]

I am not disputing that, but if there was no Brexit, then it would not have to continue for so long and other more pressing matters would have been concentrated on than this bollocks waste of time shit.

If there was a change of government maybe but Brexit or not, if it's a conservative government then we are getting austerity(In fact austerity really is a more european thing, what the UK has been through is plain and simple class war).

 

[Sweet Square]

http://www.joswinson.org.uk/_scottishness_reflections_of_identity

Apparently Jo Swinson is Scottish. Who knew?

I see no conflict in being both Scottish and British

 

[Cheesy]

She genuinely manages to use some variation of 'Scotland' five times in the first two sentences. With Burns Day and St Andrew's Day thrown in during the first paragraph for good measure.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If there was a change of government maybe but Brexit or not, if it's a conservative government then we are getting austerity(In fact austerity really is a more european thing, what the UK has been pretty simply class war).

Austerity was a response to the financial crisis though. The wrong response, arguably, but that was the context.

Without the Brexit obsession of the last few years there’s a good chance you could have seen an increase in public spending, under any government.

Ireland’s got a government that is at least as right wing as the Tories and a far more expensive bank bail-out than you guys went through and we’ve still seen some easing of the worst of our austerity measures in response to recent prosperity. Which hasn’t happened for you guys, thanks mainly to all the uncertainty about the eventual cost of Brexit.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Where are getting this from ?

Austerity was here before Brexit(Good argument to be made that austerity actually got the win for leave) and it will be here after Brexit. Unless there's a change in government.

And a good argument that by leaving the EU austerity will be considerably worse because no matter if it's the Tories or Labour the UK are going to be seriously short of money.

 

[Virgil]

Another referendum on *how* we leave? Yeah sure. But remain as we are should not be on the ballot. The majority voted to leave in whatever guise. The question was clear enough. We voted out.

Was the European Economic Community of 1975 the same as the European Union of 2016?

Because that’s the last time we had a referendum on it. 41 years inbetween the two. Many EU constitutional changes since then that were not put directly to the people: Maastricht, Lisbon treaties etc, not necessarily approved by 50.1% of British voters?

Other members held referendums. So why didn’t we?

So no, Eurosceptics haven’t had that kind of direct say on the EEC/EU for four decades. On that basis, as I say, there should be no ‘remain as we are’ option. You can have another go to rejoin 41 years after we decide how we are leaving. Fairs fair & all that.

Even if there were such an option on the ballot paper would it be any less of a pork pie than those spouted by the Brexiteers. Unless of course remainers really do believe that the EU will neither enlarge, develop or evolve further in the foreseeable future. And if the answer to that is a resounding no then have not the electorate the right to know exactly how the EU intends to change or are the leaders of the EU exempt from being held to the same level of scrutiny as we are expecting from our own politicians? Just a thought as it is a conundrum that puzzles me.

 

[Sassy Colin]

If there was a change of government maybe but Brexit or not, if it's a conservative government then we are getting austerity(In fact austerity really is a more european thing, what the UK has been through is plain and simple class war).

You didn't read my first post properly, so I tried to clarify it for you, but you didn't read my clarification properly either.

The only reason we ended up with austerity in the first place is because of your lot, so don't start crying about it now. All those years of fat and your lot didn't save a single penny. Oh, sorry, Blair/Brown were Tory light, weren't they?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Nothing to do with the opinion that the Conservatives are the more sensible option when it comes to the economy. You can argue about the impact of that on the less privileged.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

The Tories being fiscally prudent is bullshit. They do tax less in general. Of course, in the favour of the rich and business.
We can argue about the impact on the less privileged. They get fecked over by the Tories. Every single time.

 

[Cheesy]

Even if there were such an option on the ballot paper would it be any less of a pork pie than those spouted by the Brexiteers. Unless of course remainers really do believe that the EU will neither enlarge, develop or evolve further in the foreseeable future. And if the answer to that is a resounding no then have not the electorate the right to know exactly how the EU intends to change or are the leaders of the EU exempt from being held to the same level of scrutiny as we are expecting from our own politicians? Just a thought as it is a conundrum that puzzles me.

Countries literally have vetoes on new member states joining, if Britain doesn't want it to enlarge then it doesn't have to; indeed our exit makes that more likely.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

You didn't read my first post properly, so I tried to clarify it for you, but you didn't read my clarification properly either.

The only reason we ended up with austerity in the first place is because of your lot, so don't start crying about it now. All those years of fat and your lot didn't save a single penny. Oh, sorry, Blair/Brown were Tory light, weren't they?

Really? Is that why we ended up with austerity? Even if your premise of "it was all Labour's fault" is accepted, and that's an oversimplification to put it mildly, austerity was only one of several options. Which resulted in sharp increases in the national deficit since implementation and just happened to conveniently align to the ideological desire to shrink the state of the Tories.

 

[Abizzz]

Even if there were such an option on the ballot paper would it be any less of a pork pie than those spouted by the Brexiteers. Unless of course remainers really do believe that the EU will neither enlarge, develop or evolve further in the foreseeable future. And if the answer to that is a resounding no then have not the electorate the right to know exactly how the EU intends to change or are the leaders of the EU exempt from being held to the same level of scrutiny as we are expecting from our own politicians? Just a thought as it is a conundrum that puzzles me.

Johnson just lied himself to the top of the UK. If EU officials receive the same level of scrutiny as the British political class then the EU project is doomed. Because it seems anyone can become PM these days, even failed journalists. And the journalists of the day ironically see nothing wrong with a PM who invented stories as a journalist... wonder why.

Luckily not every country is run by Murdoch and friends.