• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomtom94

Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34524078

Chancellor George Osborne is urging "moderate" Labour MPs to rebel against their leadership and support his fiscal charter in a vote later.

His appeal follows a fallout within Labour after shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the party would no longer support the proposal.

The charter would force future governments to run a budget surplus.

Mr McDonnell said he would propose his own charter, but Mr Osborne said Labour MPs should vote with the government.

At the very least, Labour MPs should abstain in the vote, the chancellor added.

So, firstly, let's get my immediate reaction out of the way: odious little toad, it's not Labour who have the hugely tenuous majority, etc

Secondly, let's open it up to the floor: if you are Corbyn, how do you play this? Do you enforce the three-line whip, or do you risk allowing your MPs a little bit more freedom? It seems like too much of a gamble after the PLP fiasco, but something has to be said for peer pressure - would you want to risk being the *only* Labour MP to rebel?
 

Uzzy

Member
Voting against the fiscal charter is the right thing to do, and should be expected of every Labour MP, if they actually want to be an opposition. But it might be interesting to know exactly who in the Labour party hates Corbyn so much that they'd back Osborne.
 
Voting against the fiscal charter is the right thing to do, and should be expected of every Labour MP, if they actually want to be an opposition. But it might be interesting to know exactly who in the Labour party hates Corbyn so much that they'd back Osborne.

I dunno man, they were *angry* at the PLP meeting precisely because McDonnell U-Turned on it. This was basically a trap set by Osborne akin to Brown's 50p tax rate, and it seems they're calling straight into the trap despite originally saying they wouldn't. I don't think the angry MPs are angry because they hate Corbyn (even if they do).

As for what I think he should do, well, it'd undermine his touchy-feely leadership style to enforce a three line whip here. It would be quite a swing from one extreme to another. Besides, I can't imagine he'll have too much luck enforcing it effectively; between his political naivity and the fact the next election is 4.5 years away, I don't suppose rebels have a lot to fear. IMO he has no real choice but it make it a free vote, see where the chips fall and say "this is the new, open Labour party, where we don't dictate from above and if that means that I don't personally get my way sometimes, so be it" whilst gently reminding people that the government does actually have a majorit anyway, even if it is small.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'd vote against it. Not because of the content of the bill, which is reasonable, but because it's an abuse of legislation to try to bind future governments like this. We see it too much, it is too overtly political, and I'd rather see an end to it.
 

Jezbollah

Member
I think his leadership style has already fallen foul by his own chancellor forgoing the PLP/Shadow Cabinet route he said he was going to take and allowing one man to determine party policy. He's pretty much going to have to crack the whip to force people into compliance and voting against to support his chancellor - or if he stays true to his original word I can see many voting against or at the very least abstaining.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
I'd urge the party to not use the opportunity that one of the first major votes since the general election affords to make the opposition look like a bunch of cretins. Not just the front bench - every last one of them.

I'd also sit John McDonnell down in a room and say, "Look, I know you're my mate, and you're probably the real leader of this party at the moment, but can we at least keep up the pretence? Oh, and when you say you're going to do something, i.e. consult the party before a major policy change, please fucking do it."
 

tomtom94

Member
Kuenssberg reckons the whip is out in force today.

Highlight from the BBC article:

Critics have dismissed the charter as a "gimmick" that will either bind the hands of future governments or have so may exemptions to be pointless - and Mr Osborne himself described similar legislation introduced by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown as "vacuous and irrelevant" in 2010.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Kuenssberg reckons the whip is out in force today.

Highlight from the BBC article:

Here's the thing, Philisheep and others are right,it is an overtly political trap for Labour and is complete bullshit. The problem is how on earth is a party led by a man who has disobeyed the whip over 300 times supposed to now whip MPs to vote against something?
 

kitch9

Banned
Here's the thing, Philisheep and others are right,it is an overtly political trap for Labour and is complete bullshit. The problem is how on earth is a party led by a man who has disobeyed the whip over 300 times supposed to now whip MPs to vote against something?

Labour getting some of their own medicine after the 50p tax rate thing. All we need now is the Tories to talk about this specific policy every 30 seconds over and over for the next 5 years and they'll be even.
 
Depends it's the sort of thing which gets Tory supporters hard.

To me personally - at least, since I grew out of my clown fetish - there's very little overlap in the Venn diagram describing "things that make me laugh" and "things that make me hard".
 

CCS

Banned
To me personally - at least, since I grew out of my clown fetish - there's very little overlap in the Venn diagram describing "things that make me laugh" and "things that make me hard".

Boris Johnson is still running a one man campaign to keep that Venn diagram in politics.
 
The whip strikes me as idiotic. There's at least two other better ways of working this situation to Labour's advantage:

1. Not holding MPs to whip and telling the public "we believe this legislation is daft, but we also care about the economy and the views of our MPs".
2. Instructing to abstain on the vote - "the Tories can put whatever daft legislation they want in place - we're more interested in working on important things".

Option 3 - forcing your MPs to vote against it and triggering front-page stories about how divided Labour are, and in addition allows the Tories to - entirely validly - attack Labour for not actually caring about Britain's finances. "LABOUR IN CRISIS" is not going to do a good job encouraging their vote to turn out in May.
 

tomtom94

Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34524078

The Budget Responsibility Charter passes 320 to 258, meaning 20 Labour MPs may have abstained.

EDIT: Sky News reporting 21 Labour MPs DID abstain.

EDIT 2: misunderstood, my understanding is 37 absences of which 16 were official.

I mean, what can you say really? "The government wants to utterly discredit us. I know, let's help them as much as possible, only then can we return to not challenging them at all and wondering why people keep saying we're the same as the Tories"
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
The fiscal charter is bad economics, but good politics, now that the Tories have managed to successfully sell the idea that Labour caused the recession. Not to mention it enshrines Tory economic dogma as government-binding law, which is kind of terrible. But assuming something resembling a left-wing government is ever in power at some point in the future I suppose they can just repeal it.
 

Audioboxer

Member
As a Scot I'm really just watching the days pass till another referendum comes around... Pretty much the only hope to get away from the Torries in the near-ish future.
 

PJV3

Member
The fiscal charter is bad economics, but good politics, now that the Tories have managed to successfully sell the idea that Labour caused the recession. Not to mention it enshrines Tory economic dogma as government-binding law, which is kind of terrible. But assuming something resembling a left-wing government is ever in power at some point in the future I suppose they can just repeal it.

Outside of the entertainment value of Labour mucking it up I don't see the point of it, we all know it was a political stunt. Osborne is usually a bit more subtle about it, we don't send 600 people to Westminster to dick about, and I'm including Labour in this nonsense.

We now have some dumb rule about not investing even if it makes economic sense that either Labour or more likely the Tories will have to change eventually.
 

Protome

Member
As a Scot I'm really just watching the days pass till another referendum comes around... Pretty much the only hope to get away from the Torries in the near-ish future.
It'll take more than just "But the Tories are in power" to win the referendum though, especially after a failed one.

They would need to make a major fuck up to really convince people to start voting yes. The EU referendum could be that but I'm not sure what else could be.
 

Walshicus

Member
It'll take more than just "But the Tories are in power" to win the referendum though, especially after a failed one.

They would need to make a major fuck up to really convince people to start voting yes. The EU referendum could be that but I'm not sure what else could be.

The last referendum was closer than anyone thought and mobilised a large swathe of the Scottish public who were apathetic in previous voting... I think there's a greater appetite now for another vote than there was before the last one.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The last referendum was closer than anyone thought and mobilised a large swathe of the Scottish public who were apathetic in previous voting... I think there's a greater appetite now for another vote than there was before the last one.

High risk though. What if there is another referendum and the answer is still no?
 

Protome

Member
The last referendum was closer than anyone thought and mobilised a large swathe of the Scottish public who were apathetic in previous voting... I think there's a greater appetite now for another vote than there was before the last one.
Yes voters are still a vocal minority. A close minority, but a minority none the less. Sturgeon clearly knows this because her strategy has been "Let's not talk about a second referendum, let's focus on improving everything devolved to us so that next referendum we have a better argument."

I do think she has a better chance of winning a referendum that Salmond ever did but that could also change depending on whether the No campaign actually exists next time.

High risk though. What if there is another referendum and the answer is still no?
This definitely looks like Sturgeon's worry. I don't see her pushing for a referendum unless it's a safe bet that it would lean her way. She can't resign to Westminster like Salmond did.
 

CCS

Banned
I think a potential key factor in a future referendum would be if the government actually keeps the promises they made during the last one or not. Their failure to meet their promises is causing no small share of resentment.
 

PJV3

Member
The Scotland situation doesn't bode well for the EU referendum, Cameron needs to get on with negotiations and be up front about his demands or we're going to be back to where we are now. I don't think there will be a clear winner, but we will become a laughing stock if we vote to stay and start talking about another referendum within the month.
 
The Scotland situation doesn't bode well for the EU referendum, Cameron needs to get on with negotiations and be up front about his demands or we're going to be back to where we are now. I don't think there will be a clear winner, but we will become a laughing stock if we vote to stay and start talking about another referendum within the month.

It might be too late for that already. smh
 

Audioboxer

Member
It'll take more than just "But the Tories are in power" to win the referendum though, especially after a failed one.

They would need to make a major fuck up to really convince people to start voting yes. The EU referendum could be that but I'm not sure what else could be.

Personally I think the vow swung a lot of votes near the end. We all know how that turned out in reality. IMO a lot of no voters were burned, and it's what helped the SNP win soo many seats.

Sturgeon is a much better candidate to lead and promote an independence campaign as well, over Salmond. Not 100% sure of a yes vote, but I do think it would at least be closer now if a referendum was held within the next 12~24 months.

The only real threat I seen was a Corbyn lead Labour party (in a good way), but internally Labour just aren't melding together like the SNP.
 

Protome

Member
Personally I think the vow swung a lot of votes near the end. We all know how that turned out in reality. IMO a lot of no voters were burned, and it's what helped the SNP win soo many seats.

Sturgeon is a much better candidate to lead and promote an independence campaign as well, over Salmond. Not 100% sure of a yes vote, but I do think it would at least be closer now if a referendum was held within the next 12~24 months.
I'm not sure I agree on your first point, I definitely agree about Sturgeon though.

That said, you would assume a No campaign would take the whole thing more seriously a second go around, making it harder. The No campaign last time was a complete shambles and easily one of the worst run campaigns in the countries history. Right up until the end they were doing misguided things like "Let's bring Cameron and Clegg up to convince people not to vote Yes. That'll help, the PM the majority of Scotland voted against and the man who stabbed all his voters in the back."

Pretty much everyone, SNP included went into the last referendum expecting No to win handily. That it was so close should be considered an embarrassment for the No campaign, not a success.
 
I'm not in Scotland so I can't measure the mood, but my instinct is that the 'loudness' for wanting independence, particularly online chatter, is just the same people who were all for it before - and now just louder because of the loss (the "we are the 46% or whatever it was). And I wonder if that could actually be more alienating to the less hardcore supporters.


I could be very wrong. I dunno.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I'm not sure I agree on your first point, I definitely agree about Sturgeon though.

That said, you would assume a No campaign would take the whole thing more seriously a second go around, making it harder. The No campaign last time was a complete shambles and easily one of the worst run campaigns in the countries history. Right up until the end they were doing misguided things like "Let's bring Cameron and Clegg up to convince people not to vote Yes. That'll help, the PM the majority of Scotland voted against and the man who stabbed all his voters in the back."

Pretty much everyone, SNP included went into the last referendum expecting No to win handily. That it was so close should be considered an embarrassment for the No campaign, not a success.

I think the biggest challenge for a new No Campaign is that a fear mongering campaign a second time around will just not work. It would have to be built positively, compassionately and offer a tangible alternative to Yes. I do not think Cameron knows how to do this, given the smearing of Corbyn the second he won - Calling him a threat to national security and families. That shit just doesn't work north of the border any more given how politically shrewd large parts of Scotland have become after the experience of the referendum.

We do not really seem to have the London bubble effect up here, at least not on the scale of how much London "thinks" it is England. Maybe parts of Edinburgh can be compared, maybe. So when good ideas and positive reinforcement sweeps over Scotland it does manage to pickup a lot of traction, even when passing through parts of the country that are more affluent. Not to broadly put any English down, but the general atmosphere up here is people care about issues, even if they aren't directly impacted. The Tories rule out of a "rich London" and many a time it seems as if they couldn't give a fuck about other cities in England that aren't called London. IMO anyway. I also guess that is more an attack from me on Wesminster/Tories, instead of the actual English voters (who clearly do care and the Corbyn effect can be compared directly to the SNP).
 

Protome

Member
I think the biggest challenge for a new No Campaign is that a fear mongering campaign a second time around will just not work. It would have to be built positively, compassionately and offer a tangible alternative to Yes. I do not think Cameron knows how to do this, given the smearing of Corbyn the second he won - Calling him a threat to national security and families. That shit just doesn't work north of the border any more given how politically shrewd large parts of Scotland have become after the experience of the referendum.

We do not really seem to have the London bubble effect up here, at least not on the scale of how much London "thinks" it is England. Maybe parts of Edinburgh can be compared, maybe. So when good ideas and positive reinforcement sweeps over Scotland it does manage to pickup a lot of traction, even when passing through parts of the country that are more affluent. Not to broadly put any English down, but the general atmosphere up here is people care about issues, even if they aren't directly impacted. IMO anyway.
I agree completely.

It'd also be a near impossible battle if the EU referendum goes south. Given how big a sticking point "An independent Scotland wouldn't be in the EU" was for a LOT of No voters.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I agree completely.

It'd also be a near impossible battle if the EU referendum goes south. Given how big a sticking point "An independent Scotland wouldn't be in the EU" was for a LOT of No voters.

The UK leaving the EU is probably the one thing I think even the bookies would favour a Yes vote in a proposed referendum.

I really do not think the Torries will lead the UK out of the EU. If they do actually care about keeping the country together they have to know they pretty much are signing Scotland off for independence if they bullishly go after leaving the EU. A well thought out, compassionate and informative campaign would need to be led offering a positive to leaving the EU, and given their track record I just fail to see them being capable of doing this. Again, fear mongering is simply becoming a poor way to win anything in the UK. Which is a good thing. Democratic votes should be fought on good ideas and alternatives that offer positives.

A lot of things in the EU need reformed, and IMO we should be campaigning and trying to get things changed, not just stampeding out of the EU.
 
It's tremendously difficult to make a positive case for the status quo, though. It'll be the same with the EU - the arguments in favour of staying will all inevitably come down to "leaving will be bad" rather than "staying will be good" because we already know what it's like to be "in" - the only point of comparison is to the alternative. When you're talking about an unknown, there's a great deal of room to be wildly optimistic (or ruinously negative), where as arguing for the status has to be grounded in far greater levels of the mundane.

Tbh the best arguments against Scottish Independence are economic ones. The idea that your enjoyment of life and friends and how much you enjoy going fishing with your kids or fixing up an old motorbike with your mates is related to the constitutional arrangement of your country is ridiculous; The only way it matters is to the extent that it facilitates your ability to have an maintain a decent quality of life, which is an almost entirely economic argument (which is to say being poorer very rarely improves your quality of life).
 

Beefy

Member
Boris Johnson has knocked over a 10-year-old child while playing touch rugby in Japan.

The Mayor of London who is in the country on a trade visit was invited to join children on a mini turf pitch in Tokyo for the non-contact game.

Toki Sekiguchi was knocked to the ground and said he "felt a little pain".

The mayor, a keen rugby fan, shook the boy's hand and apologised.

In the game of touch rugby the person with the ball is stopped by being touched, not tackled, as in union rugby.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34537841

Boris being Boris.
 

Jezbollah

Member
You know it's bad when Nicola Sturgeon says this about the Labour Party:

You know, there is much that I hoped the SNP and Jeremy Corbyn could work together on.

But over these last few weeks, it has become glaringly obvious that he is unable to unite his party on any of the big issues of our day.

When he says he opposes Trident, he is attacked, not just by the Tories, but by his own shadow cabinet.

When he says he opposes the welfare cap, he is opposed, not just by Iain Duncan Smith, but by his own Shadow Justice Secretary.

A shadow justice secretary, incidentally, who is a member of the unelected House of Lords.

Labour is unreliable, unelectable and unable to stand up to the Tories.
 

Empty

Member
nicola sturgeon would slaughter the labour party regardless

like she's literally completely reversed her argument here to suit the leader. miliband could unite his party and was the only way to prevent a tory government, so of course they emphasized arguing that they were more social democratic than labour. corbyn is genuinely anti-austerity instead of fake anti-austerity and has real left wing ambitions beyond feel good nationalist tripe, so of course they emphasise the division and their inability to form a government.

that said it's just a total waste of time thinking about defeating the snp in the short term. new labour platform with effective governance + confident nationalist identity is just way too electorally potent. we're completely fucked in terms of reputation and have been wedged out of our electoral position and are miles behind with little space to operate . labour won't win its place back for decades if at all. soon labour dominating scotland will be like when democrats won majorities in the southern states of america.
 

Audioboxer

Member
Tommy Sheppard's 'top 10 most ridiculous aspects of the Palace of Westminster'

Tommy Sheppard, the SNP MP for Edinburgh East, devoted his speech to his “top 10 most ridiculous aspects of the Palace of Westminster”. He read them out in reverse order. Here they are.

10 - Not being allowed to call MPs by name in the chamber. Many MPs have got into trouble for using a person’s name in a debate, he said.

9 - The adversarial layout of the Commons chamber. The lines on the carpet in the chamber are two sword lengths apart, he said.

8 - The fact that the Commons was deliberately designed so that seating is only available for half of the MPs entitled to attend.

That seems to be be fundamentally contemptuous of the whole idea of people in this country being represented in a chamber.

7 - The fact at MPs are not allowed to applaud. Applauding is a “natural human reaction”, he said.

What’s more bizarre than that, whilst we are not allowed to applaud, there seems to be no restriction whatsoever on the number of animal impersonations that the Conservatives are allowed to do in the middle of the debate.

6 - The voting process (ie, having MPs ticked off by hand as they go through a lobby, instead of having electronic voting.)

You will be appalled when I tell you this but we are paid by the taxpayer for up to three hours a week on a busy business week to simply stand in a corridor and wait to give our name to a clerk to explain whether we are voting for or against the proposition. This is a parliament, by the way, that you would almost think was sponsored by Apple, given that we are all given a free iPad when we get there. If we cannot begin to look at electronic voting and coming into the 21st century, it seems to me just dreadfully archaic.

He also complained that MPs were not allowed to abstain, because there is no proper way of recording an abstention.

5 - The way prayers are said in the Commons. Every Commons session starts with prayers, he said. (This takes place in private; you will never see it on TV.) But it is conducted just for members of the Church of England, he said.

4 - The uniforms worn by the door staff in the Commons.

This is, quite simply, Georgian pantomime dress. You will have seen these men, quite literally, in tights and swords, and the most ridiculous part of the uniform that I have come across is a curly ruffle thing that they wear down their back which is called a wig bag. It seems to be just unfair to these poor souls to make them put on this costume in a chamber which is meant to be about making political and important decisions for the country and for the world.

3 - The ability of former MPs to be allowed a pass giving them entry to the Commons.

My first occasion walking into the terrace of the House of Commons was to come across no less than three people who we had just defeated at the election in Scotland, standing there with the same pass that I had, with the same access and privileges that I had. And that’s because, once you join the House of Commons, you are members of a club. And you can stay a member of the club even if the electorate decide you are no longer fit to be there.

2 - The House of Lords. MPs can lose an election, but return to parliament as members of the Lords, he said.

Within members of parliament, we have a situation unique in the civilised world where we actually accept that most of our members of parliament are not elected by the people. And that seems to me an anachronism whose time has come. And if we do nothing else, we must advance the case for the abolition of the House of Lords.

1 - First past the post. That was as “democratic outrage”, he said, because it allowed the Tories to govern with the support of less than one person in four on the electoral register.

This first-past-the-post system is the most corrupt and corrupting practice in a democracy and I would for one resign my seat and give it up tomorrow if they would bring in a system of proportional representation in this country.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/15/snp-conference-politics-live

You can see it delivered here - https://youtu.be/fMMvzOAXSQw?t=12363
 

Uzzy

Member
David Cameron is to detail the changes to the EU he wishes to see.

The prime minister is to write a letter to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council who chairs EU summits, detailing the changes he hopes to obtain in the EU before putting the outcome to a referendum by the end of 2017 on whether the UK should remain in the EU.

The letter is to be sent in November so that the other 27 governments of the EU are able to consider it ahead of another EU summit in December which is expected to tackle the British question more substantively.

It begins.
 

Uzzy

Member
Now this is what I've been waiting for, it's gonna be historic whichever way it goes.

The letter is apparently going to be made public too. Which makes sense, given that it'll be leaked the moment it leaves Cameron's hands.

Guess we'll see if Cameron goes big and tries to please the UKIP voters, or goes more moderate to not scare everyone else off.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The letter is apparently going to be made public too. Which makes sense, given that it'll be leaked the moment it leaves Cameron's hands.

Guess we'll see if Cameron goes big and tries to please the UKIP voters, or goes more moderate to not scare everyone else off.

It's all noise. Whatever is in the letter will have been approved beforehand by layers of diplomats on all sides. Even if it looks controversial it will look differently controversial from different aspects and will be open to all manner of interpretation. Quite possibly with the rest of the EU using UK as a handy excuse to do things they might have wanted to do but feared,

It's not like Cameron is throwing demands into the wind, no way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom