Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ New Political party?

Posted by: vidcapper Apr 9 2018, 06:08 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5590937/Secret-plans-new-political-party-drawn-50million.html

I suspect they'll have a struggle to get off the ground, as I can't see them finding something uniquely appealing.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Apr 9 2018, 08:48 AM

They would need at least twice the current Libdem support to start to even breakthrough, and that is unlikely.

As a longterm build though, we have the failing economy, Brexit (which everyone will complain about on both sides), and post-Corbyn Labour all in the mix.

Liam Fox biggest achievement so far is to get 40 countries to roughly agree to the same deal we have with the EU on trade. Sadly no list on which countries they are nor anything about most of the countries in the world, and of course nothing in writing.

Plenty of room for things to go tits up, Labour to get in, find things get worse, and both parties get stuffed for lying to us all/doing nothing about it. At which point anything could happen...

Posted by: Suedehead2 Apr 9 2018, 10:29 AM

So far the party seems to have a large pot of money but no members. With no hint of even a vague philosophy, they haven't begun to give the vaguest clue what they are trying to achieve.

Posted by: vidcapper Apr 12 2018, 10:30 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Apr 9 2018, 11:29 AM) *
So far the party seems to have a large pot of money but no members. With no hint of even a vague philosophy, they haven't begun to give the vaguest clue what they are trying to achieve.


The phrase 'spanner in the works' comes to mind. heehee.gif

Posted by: Popchartfreak Apr 18 2018, 07:43 PM

here's a novel opinion...


@OliverBullough
Apr 17

I know the idea of a new centrist party is a joke, but I can't help thinking there's political room in the UK in the gap between politicians that deport British people for being black, and ones that excuse dictators as long as they don't like America.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Apr 18 2018, 08:02 PM

There was a funny & enlightening Tweet on the subject of a new centrist party that I came across the other day. I can't remember exactly what it said, but paraphrased, it went something along the lines of

"when people think of a new UK centrist party, they imagine it being along the lines of a more effective version of the Liberal Democrats. In actually, it would be more of a "we love the NHS, hang the pedos" party."

I feel like there would be a massive market for a new centrist party, one which by a remarkable coincidence matches up exactly with every single one of my own personal political views. Although then again, whilst I tend to consider myself a centrist, I'm the wrong kind of centrist.

Posted by: vidcapper Apr 19 2018, 06:11 AM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Apr 18 2018, 09:02 PM) *
There was a funny & enlightening Tweet on the subject of a new centrist party that I came across the other day. I can't remember exactly what it said, but paraphrased, it went something along the lines of

"when people think of a new UK centrist party, they imagine it being along the lines of a more effective version of the Liberal Democrats. In actually, it would be more of a "we love the NHS, hang the pedos" party."

I feel like there would be a massive market for a new centrist party, one which by a remarkable coincidence matches up exactly with every single one of my own personal political views. Although then again, whilst I tend to consider myself a centrist, I'm the wrong kind of centrist.


There's certainly no current party, either mainstream or extreme, that closely matches my political views.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Apr 19 2018, 07:25 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Apr 19 2018, 07:11 AM) *
There's certainly no current party, either mainstream or extreme, that closely matches my political views.


Safe to assume there never will be?

Posted by: vidcapper Apr 19 2018, 08:09 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Apr 19 2018, 08:25 AM) *
Safe to assume there never will be?


Alas, yes - which is incidentally why I favour referendums and/or direct democracy. That way I don't have to rely on waiting fruitlessly for politicians to offer what I am looking for.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Jan 10 2019, 07:19 PM

Tim Farron wrote an editorial today condemning the abuse of MPs and journalists. However, the most interesting point is hidden in the final two paragraphs, where he seems to be calling for a new political party. From https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/my-plan-to-end-the-abuse-of-mps/ -

QUOTE
There are about 200 Labour MPs and 20-30 Tories, not to mention the Liberal Democrats, who have far more in common with one another than with the leadership of the two big parties. The main thing preventing them from forming another party to challenge them is party tribalism. This is unhealthy politics, especially when our main opposition party is acting, in a term aptly coined by Tory MP Sam Gyimah, as ‘not a Government in waiting but an Opposition in hiding’.

So in the interests of not being tribal, I will say that we need to kickstart this much talked-about new movement that could bring together politicians of different political colours but a common outlook. We need to relegate the extremists to the fringes and move back towards a more civilised politics, where we take care to attack the ball and not the player.



Posted by: Steve201 Jan 11 2019, 01:02 AM

That's because most labour MPs are left over from another time and aren't in line with the leadership, hopefully we will get some new thinkers through in the coming elections.

Now let's get past new parties and what you think of the sdlp and Fianna Fáil merging in Ireland?

Posted by: Brett-Butler Jan 11 2019, 07:48 PM

QUOTE(Steve201 @ Jan 11 2019, 02:02 AM) *
That's because most labour MPs are left over from another time and aren't in line with the leadership, hopefully we will get some new thinkers through in the coming elections.

Now let's get past new parties and what you think of the sdlp and Fianna Fáil merging in Ireland?


Thought you'd be the person to ask me about that!

The way I see things, the current SDLP is on the verge of splitting into three different factions. The first faction are those who will be fully on board with the idea of a link-up between themselves and Fianna Fáil, which includes people like former MP Margaret Ritchie, which was a bit of a shock as my sources told me that she was very much running on auto-pilot for the last few years until she was unseated. It'll largely be the older and more traditional members that will go for this - I'm not sure whether this will end up being a full merger or just an electoral pact, but I imagine the first time we will see this will be in the local elections in May.

The second faction are the Labour-ite faction. These are the ones who not only favour the SDLP's current official partnership with the UK Labour Party, but would go further and be full-on Jeremy Corbyn supporters. This would largely be favoured by the younger members of the party's grassroots, as well as MLAs like Claire Hanna, who have been vocal about their opposition to the Fianna Fáil link-up. I can see this group either calling for an official electoral pact with the Labour Party in the north (like the UUP's rather awful attempt with the Conservatives in 2010), or will seek the Labour Party to finally stand candidates in Northern Ireland, of which these members will find themselves the likely "guinea pig" candidates to see if a Labour Party can win here. Of course there's the complication of the SDLP being a nationalist party and Labour technically being unionist by default, but given Corbyn's support for reunification, it may not be as big a problem as at first.

The third group are those who would be neither in favour of a link-up with Fianna Faíl or the UK Labour Party, but still want to be in a party that runs on an all-Ireland basis. This group would politically be closer to the Fáils than the UK Labourites, but still have ideological differences with the former. This group I could see forming a new all-Ireland party, one that sees themselves as the ideological successors of the SDLP of the Good Friday Agreement, although I would argue that neither of the three factions could genuinely claim the mantle of Hume & the other architects of the peace process of that time.

Although I'm going to be sad to see the inevitable splintering of the SDLP, given that they're the party who's consistently got my vote the most over the years, it is exciting to see the reconfiguration of nationalism within the island of Ireland. One of the side effects of Brexit is that it is giving nationalism a chance to do some soul-searching, to look at itself and decide what form nationalism should take, which I feel is going to be quite interesting over the coming months and years, especially with the possibility of a reunification vote at its likeliest in quite a long time. I'm also hoping that we start to see more all-Ireland parties running for elections in the coming years, at the moment I believe that it's only Sinn Fein and People Before Profit that currently do so (and the latter have really s*** their bed politically over the past 2 years, due to their support of Brexit, the moment that I realised that one of their more prominent members was thick as champ). I'd also love to see an all-Ireland party at Westminister for the first time in nearly a century, although given Sinn Fein's current abstemious position, it would have to be a different party that does it.

Posted by: Steve201 Jan 15 2019, 02:18 PM

Who was as thick as? Is he an MLA by any chance? That would narrow it down!!

Seems that the Belfast sdlp are the more labourite minded so would be interesting to see if Nichola Mallon would join Eastwood in being happy to move. It's a complicated picture but fascinating to see the political ramifications of an all island party taking their seats at West minister (possibly). Would be hard to stomach north and south.

Are the Green Party not all Ireland? Or are they a sister party if both UK and Irish Greens?

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 3 2019, 11:22 AM

The Observer are reporting that a group of at least six Labour MPs are on the verge of resigning the whip and starting a new grouping in parliament. Of the three MPs https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/rebel-labour-mps-set-to-quit-party-and-form-centre-group, two of them (Angela Smith & Chris Leslie) have faced votes of no-confidence within their local party, whilst the third, Luciana Berger, has received criticism from some Labourites for attacking the party's antisemitism (Berger is Jewish).

I'd be tempted to write this off as a silly season story, although given that there are a few bigger stories that are currently dominating the news agenda, and given that some of the touted names would have less to lose if they jumped ship, I would take this story with a little bit less salt than I otherwise would. Still would be surprised if it happened though.

Posted by: The Snake Feb 3 2019, 12:16 PM

And on the other side of the Brexit spectrum...there is also 'The Brexit Party' formed out of UKIP members disaffected by the direction the party has gone under Gerard Batten. I would say there is the possibility of some Conservative Brexiteers eventually joining it if there is a soft Brexit.

QUOTE
The way I see things, the current SDLP is on the verge of splitting into three different factions.


Considering how badly they did in the last general election (losing all three of their seats), this is the last thing they need, and it is very bad for opposition in Northern Ireland to DUP and Sinn Fein dominance (together with the relative electoral weakness of the UUP and Alliance).

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 3 2019, 12:53 PM

QUOTE(The Snake @ Feb 3 2019, 01:16 PM) *
And on the other side of the Brexit spectrum...there is also 'The Brexit Party' formed out of UKIP members disaffected by the direction the party has gone under Gerard Batten. I would say there is the possibility of some Conservative Brexiteers eventually joining it if there is a soft Brexit.


We've already seen an attempt at that with the new SDP, who are positioning themselves as more economically redistributive pro-Brexit Party. They've already gained (temporarily) an MEP in Patrick O'Flynn, who defected from UKIP, and they are likely to stand in the probable Peterborough by-election, and their membership has increased in the past few months. I think they will start to have a rise during the year, albeit not to the stage where they can win seats either at local or national level.

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 3 2019, 01:50 PM

We do desperately need a strong centrist party. The continual Tory highs in the opinion polls are almost certainly because too many people in this country have an opinion that 'Corbyn would be worse than anything ever' and so continue to support this car-crash as if a cabal of corrupt landlords and investment bankers with clearly very few political skills is worth supporting. So many European countries have that strong centrist party and work with coalition governments and it SEEMS at least a much nicer and less confrontational system.

The thing is, short of a En Marche-style political revolution, which is categorically not happening, or a forced split in one of the two main parties, I don't see how it will change. It would be best for the country if both the Tories and Labour split in two between the ERG lot and the traditional Conservative Tories on the one side and Centrist Blairites and Corbynites on the other, but there's no way they will do that voluntarily on a large scale, even if a few dissidents like these split.

Oh and change away from FPTP but that goes without saying and I might as well just add it in there so people know I know it's the problem.

Posted by: Harve Feb 3 2019, 04:06 PM

Oh if I was in England where 99% of seats are straight Tory vs. Labour/Lib Dem contests (and Tory/Lab seats massively outnumber Tory/Lib seats) then I wouldn't hesitate to vote Labour regardless of who was leader. With perhaps the exception of a "Blue Labour" manifesto, in which case I'd seriously consider throwing a (useless) protest vote to the Libs or Greens. But yes, I'd be more enthusiastic about doing so were Corbyn not leader...

The problem is not Corbyn though, and dumping him will create as many electoral problems as it would solve. The party won't dump him anyway. The problem is FPTP and we decided to keep that in 2011. Despite it being a footnote in history, I'll always remember that referendum as it was the first time I was politically engaged!

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 3 2019, 04:58 PM

both main parties need a rocket up the arse. I'd support any non-extreme party being created, though without any big political names it'll be as dead as a dodo within months of the next general election.

Posted by: The Snake Feb 3 2019, 06:46 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 3 2019, 12:53 PM) *
We've already seen an attempt at that with the new SDP, who are positioning themselves as more economically redistributive pro-Brexit Party. They've already gained (temporarily) an MEP in Patrick O'Flynn, who defected from UKIP, and they are likely to stand in the probable Peterborough by-election, and their membership has increased in the past few months. I think they will start to have a rise during the year, albeit not to the stage where they can win seats either at local or national level.


I didn't know that this new incarnation of the SDP was pro-Brexit. It will be interesting to see whether the SDP or the new Farage-backed 'Brexit Party' that has been reported about this week becomes more popular then!

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 4 2019, 06:37 AM

QUOTE(Harve @ Feb 3 2019, 04:06 PM) *
The problem is not Corbyn though, and dumping him will create as many electoral problems as it would solve. The party won't dump him anyway. The problem is FPTP and we decided to keep that in 2011. Despite it being a footnote in history, I'll always remember that referendum as it was the first time I was politically engaged!


Part of the problem was the choice offered - Alternative Vote was just about the worst of all the other possible systems. Not genuinely proportional at all. sad.gif

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 3 2019, 04:58 PM) *
both main parties need a rocket up the arse.


Amen to that! tongue.gif


Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 7 2019, 06:45 PM

Owen Smith, who failed to unseat Corbyn as the leader of Labour, has suggested that he and other Labour members could leave over Jeremy Corbyn's https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47157567. Coupled with other goings on in the party, including Luciana Berger having a vote of no-confidence put against her at her local party, we could see a new grouping much sooner than one might have expected (although I do remain somewhat sceptical).

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 8 2019, 06:31 AM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 7 2019, 06:45 PM) *
Owen Smith, who failed to unseat Corbyn as the leader of Labour, has suggested that he and other Labour members could leave over Jeremy Corbyn's https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47157567. Coupled with other goings on in the party, including Luciana Berger having a vote of no-confidence put against her at her local party, we could see a new grouping much sooner than one might have expected (although I do remain somewhat sceptical).


Anyone see a potential major realignment of British politics? unsure.gif

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 8 2019, 07:47 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 8 2019, 07:31 AM) *
Anyone see a potential major realignment of British politics? unsure.gif


In a word, no. Although we could see a temporary realignment with various factions breaking away from the main parties, by the next election the electorate will gravitate back to the main two parties. One of the many drawbacks of FPTP is that is always benefits the established parties.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 8 2019, 09:58 AM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 8 2019, 07:47 AM) *
In a word, no. Although we could see a temporary realignment with various factions breaking away from the main parties, by the next election the electorate will gravitate back to the main two parties. One of the many drawbacks of FPTP is that is always benefits the established parties.


Too true - the last party that broke into the mainstream was Labour, a hundred years ago - and even that was due to franchising millions of new working class voters, rather than a sea-change in existing voters... sad.gif

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 8 2019, 10:21 AM

however a minor new party with a few seats could hold the balance of power, and if it's centrist could force the nuttier extremism of the left and right back to the centre - aware that the electorate will blame them for everything the bigger parties do, or course as they try to rewrite history at the next election. Like saying austerity was a Tory thing, when it was also a Labour thing, one just outbid the other on the severity of it, which happened under Labour watch after a decade in power.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 8 2019, 03:12 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 8 2019, 10:21 AM) *
however a minor new party with a few seats could hold the balance of power, and if it's centrist could force the nuttier extremism of the left and right back to the centre - aware that the electorate will blame them for everything the bigger parties do, or course as they try to rewrite history at the next election. Like saying austerity was a Tory thing, when it was also a Labour thing, one just outbid the other on the severity of it, which happened under Labour watch after a decade in power.


At the time I think austerity was necessary, due to the economic climate, but perhaps it went on longer than was really needed. People seem to want action in the economy, rather than ticking along at a slow & steady, if safe, pace.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 8 2019, 06:33 PM

Nigel Farage has officially launched his new political party, the https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/thousands-tory-party-members-defect-nigel-farages-brexit-party/. Despite his rhetoric about getting thousands of defectors from the Tory ranks, I don't think it is going to amount to much.

Posted by: Handmade Heaven Feb 18 2019, 08:08 AM

A group of Labour MPs are set to resign this morning according to Laura Kuennsberg

eeeek....

Posted by: Handmade Heaven Feb 18 2019, 10:20 AM

Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes, Ann Coffey, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Chuka Umunna, Gavin Shuker all resigned to form the Independent Group.

Bit of a silly name as it takes away from the actual Independant MPs who don’t stand with a party.

There’s rumours that they will stand for re-election in marginal constituencies rather than their current omes

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 18 2019, 11:50 AM

By itself it's pretty small. If certain Tories followed them, or they joined up with the Lib Dems (something that they have ruled out right now), then it could be something not totally insignificant on a national scale.

I understand why they did it, from what I know of them, particularly Luciana and Chuka, their interests aren't aligning with the party and haven't for some time, but if it doesn't force anything further, it will turn out to be a large mistake.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn Feb 18 2019, 12:52 PM

Why don't they just call it "Chukavision"?

I did laugh at what the BBC commentator said earlier: "7 MPs might be enough for a dinner party, but not necessarily a new political party".

Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 18 2019, 12:53 PM

Self serving traitors imo.

Everything they claim to feel so strongly about, if that was really the case you think they'd have stood up then and there rather than waiting for a politically expedient time that just *happened* to coincide with their own knterests coming into conflict with party policy, and their constant attempts to drag the party to the right and/or seize leadership control being continually rebuffed.

Good riddance if you ask me.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 18 2019, 02:58 PM

errr when you get members of the party (Hi Boy Owen!) doing their utmost to get rid of anyone that doesnt toe the party line a la Corbynism (who was happily tolerated for decades despite not being aligned with mainstream Labour) then it's not at all surprising that MP's made to feel alienated and unwanted do what they've been pressured to do for the last couple of years by the same people now hypocritically slagging them off for leaving after telling them to leave over and over again.

What goes around comes around and if the intolerant shoe fits.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 18 2019, 03:42 PM

The Labour response to this is boringly predictable. It's exactly the same response that we've heard every time an MP chooses to leave their party. No doubt we will hear exactly the same response if a batch of Tories finally decide that they can no longer stomach being in the same party as Jack Mogg.

Posted by: Esmerelda Feb 18 2019, 03:51 PM

Both Labour and the Conservative parties could do with splitting. They have both reached the stage where they simply cannot contain the wide variety of views on certain key issues any longer. FPTP forces these bloated parties trying to be all things to all people.

I would have some respect for "the 7" is they triggered by elections and gave their constituents a "people's vote" on them, but it seems they won't be doing so- probably because they know they would all lose.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 18 2019, 04:05 PM

QUOTE(Esmerelda @ Feb 18 2019, 03:51 PM) *
Both Labour and the Conservative parties could do with splitting. They have both reached the stage where they simply cannot contain the wide variety of views on certain key issues any longer. FPTP forces these bloated parties trying to be all things to all people.


It seems that voting reform is the one thing we virtually all agree on

QUOTE
I would have some respect for "the 7" is they triggered by elections and gave their constituents a "people's vote" on them, but it seems they won't be doing so- probably because they know they would all lose.


They're only delaying the inevitable until the next GE though. tongue.gif

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 18 2019, 04:37 PM

The fact that the seven haven't formed another party may be because they hope to be able to rejoin the Labour fold at some point. Of course, they may find that their constituency party has gone ahead and selected a new candidate by then.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 18 2019, 06:13 PM

New Party Day! This is one of my favourite "once in a blue moon" days, alongside new Pope day.

It will be interesting to see what happens with them. Although SDP comparisons will abound, it's worth noting that unlike them, none of the 7 would have been household names, with the possible exception of Chuka Umunna. And if it means that more people will realise that the SDP are still going, then all the better.

If there are other further defections, only in the Tory camp, Anna Soubry, one of the most pro-Remain Conservatives, could be amongst them. However, I still maintain that come the next election, things will once again rebalance in favour of the Big 2.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis Feb 18 2019, 07:07 PM

I've signed up to support them and ready to be selected as a candidate in the June election x

Posted by: handmade heaven2 Feb 18 2019, 07:42 PM

ive also signed up*.* i would love to stand in either my home or uni constituency

Posted by: Doctor Blind Feb 18 2019, 08:04 PM

It's started off well, Angela Smith on BBC2 at lunchtime (and she's already https://twitter.com/angelasmithmp/status/1097518807357288448)




Posted by: Handmade Heaven Feb 18 2019, 08:25 PM

That’s just part of the qualification process to be a party

Posted by: Doctor Blind Feb 18 2019, 08:30 PM

Labour MP Rupa Huq said: “They claim their new party is anti-racist and modern yet in the same breath describe black, Asian and minority ethnic people as having a ‘funny tinge’. This is, at best, the casual racism of the 1970s that I thought we’d long left behind. But it will strike many as an appalling, racist comment. Is the Independent Group going to investigate?”

Also: Big row brewing as The Independent Group signals it could let sex harassment accused MPs John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis sit with them.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/30-mps-labour-independent-group

They should have just joined the Tories tbh.

Posted by: Andrew. Feb 18 2019, 09:05 PM

I doubt I'll be a huge fan of their general policies but it's good that some in Labour are taking a stand over Brexit and the bullying/intimidation going on in the party.

QUOTE(Pëpé Le Pew @ Feb 18 2019, 12:53 PM) *
Self serving traitors imo.

The moment you use 'traitors', people automatically stop registering with your argument.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 18 2019, 10:41 PM

The problem that the new Independent Grouping will have, and a problem that any "centrist" party will face, is that they will be facing an attack on two fronts, both from the right, and its associated press, as well as from the left, and its associated groupings as well. As such, any weaknesses and missteps will be poured over with a fine tooth comb, and amplified to a much greater extent than if it were from just one party, which is another one of the reasons why I don't think this grouping will be the long-term prospect they are hoping for.

But all I can say is I'm really looking forward to the next by-election.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 19 2019, 06:46 AM

QUOTE(BotchLikeThis @ Feb 18 2019, 07:07 PM) *
I've signed up to support them and ready to be selected as a candidate in the June election x


What June election - do you know something even the PM doesn't? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 19 2019, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Feb 18 2019, 08:30 PM) *
Labour MP Rupa Huq said: “They claim their new party is anti-racist and modern yet in the same breath describe black, Asian and minority ethnic people as having a ‘funny tinge’. This is, at best, the casual racism of the 1970s that I thought we’d long left behind. But it will strike many as an appalling, racist comment. Is the Independent Group going to investigate?”

Also: Big row brewing as The Independent Group signals it could let sex harassment accused MPs John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis sit with them.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/30-mps-labour-independent-group

They should have just joined the Tories tbh.


yet I see a woman saying white women have a hard time, and non-white women have an even harder time then stumbling over her words while arguing against bigotry. Bloody women trying to stand up for women and racism! Why can't they just shut up and let the men who are much better at using words tell them what to think?

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 19 2019, 09:00 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 19 2019, 06:46 AM) *
What June election - do you know something even the PM doesn't? rolleyes.gif

Given the co-ordinated attacks on Corbyn in the press over the last couple weeks, a June (or May) election would not be a surprise. Of course, there also remains the possibility of a European Parliament election.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 19 2019, 09:15 AM

I also think there’s local elections coming up in GB (I assume - they’re taking place in Northern Ireland, and before you ask no, I am not standing, although a former advisor to a local MLA has been encouraging me to do so).

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 19 2019, 09:18 AM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 19 2019, 09:15 AM) *
I also think there’s local elections coming up in GB (I assume - they’re taking place in Northern Ireland, and before you ask no, I am not standing, although a former advisor to a local MLA has been encouraging me to do so).

That’s why I added the possibility of a May election on the same day as the locals.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis Feb 19 2019, 08:43 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 19 2019, 06:46 AM) *
What June election - do you know something even the PM doesn't? rolleyes.gif


Every eventuality right now feels like it will end in a vote of no confidence in March. It's really difficult to see how we can avoid another imminent election with the level of chaos currently in the Commons.

Posted by: Envoirment Feb 19 2019, 10:25 PM

An 8th Labour MP, Joan Ryan, has quit the party and is joining the indepenant group - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47300832

Interesting to see the new independent group seems to be gaining a little momentum. Perhaps more Labour MPs and even some Tory MPs will join in the coming weeks.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 19 2019, 10:53 PM

I think there will be more drip-drip defections over the next few days to keep the momentum growing and the story continually at the top of the news agenda. It would not surprise me if there were more defections on Wednesday, Thursday & Friday, with Thursday seeing the first Conservative switch (as that is when the story will need "novelty" to justify it staying near the top of the headlines).

Posted by: BotchLikeThis Feb 19 2019, 11:00 PM

I think we could get the first Tory switcher as soon as tomorrow!

Posted by: LexC Feb 20 2019, 12:32 AM

Newsnight reporting that Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston are resigning tomorrow.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 20 2019, 06:15 AM

QUOTE(BotchLikeThis @ Feb 19 2019, 08:43 PM) *
Every eventuality right now feels like it will end in a vote of no confidence in March. It's really difficult to see how we can avoid another imminent election with the level of chaos currently in the Commons.


The last such vote didn't work, why would another?

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 20 2019, 07:56 AM

QUOTE(LexC @ Feb 20 2019, 12:32 AM) *
Newsnight reporting that Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston are resigning tomorrow.


Hope so. The sheer amount of death threats, anger, aggression that Anna Soubry has had from extremists since the referendum would make it lovely to behold some chickens coming home to roost in the Tory Party too. An intolerant party deserves what it gets. The main difference with the 80's is it was just the one party bitterly infighting (though without the personal social media attacks you get these days), these days it's both of them manipulating and putting their own interests first rather than the nation's.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 20 2019, 09:00 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 20 2019, 07:56 AM) *
Hope so. The sheer amount of death threats, anger, aggression that Anna Soubry has had from extremists since the referendum would make it lovely to behold some chickens coming home to roost in the Tory Party too. An intolerant party deserves what it gets. The main difference with the 80's is it was just the one party bitterly infighting (though without the personal social media attacks you get these days), these days it's both of them manipulating and putting their own interests first rather than the nation's.


Sounds like yet another reason to change to STV, so that a range of opinions within each party would be *essential* to maximise their allocatable votes - not to mention discouraging extremists from infiltrating mainstream parties.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 20 2019, 11:16 AM

Sarah Wollaston has lost her position as the Tory MP for whom I have the most respect. She has left the party to join the Independent Group along with two other Tories, Heidi Allen and Anna Soubry.

Posted by: BotchLikeThis Feb 20 2019, 11:37 AM

QUOTE(BotchLikeThis @ Feb 19 2019, 11:00 PM) *
I think we could get the first Tory switcher as soon as tomorrow!


Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 20 2019, 12:02 PM

QUOTE(Andrew. @ Feb 18 2019, 09:05 PM) *
I doubt I'll be a huge fan of their general policies but it's good that some in Labour are taking a stand over Brexit and the bullying/intimidation going on in the party.
The moment you use 'traitors', people automatically stop registering with your argument.


Speak for yourself!

It's just a word. But I may have been a little heated when I made that comment. To clarify it's not directed at the concept of splitting off but at the way in which these particular individuals picked their time to, and seemed to decide to in a way to harm the party they previously stood in support of and who pays their salaries, after using their positions to slam their leadership on spurious grounds and unfounded stories while not actually opposing the current government at all who are on record doing much worse.

That speaks imo to people of not strong principles who are out for their own benefit, not the benefit of the people. Perhaps they will change and present better, but at present that's the cut of the jib it seems to be. If you don't like the word traitor or traitorous I could alternatively have said backstabbers, self-interested, liars, or anything else of the sort. The fact the 'new party' is set up as a private company, already soliciting donations, but with no rules or regulations, doesn't seem to have any policies, and that when prominent member Chuka was asked couldn't name any Labour policies he disagrees with - yet felt disenfranchised enough he had to leave and strike out alone - all put them on thin ice from the off in my book. Before we even get into 'funny tinge'!

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 20 2019, 12:44 PM

QUOTE(Pëpé Le Pew @ Feb 20 2019, 12:02 PM) *
Speak for yourself!

It's just a word. But I may have been a little heated when I made that comment. To clarify it's not directed at the concept of splitting off but at the way in which these particular individuals picked their time to, and seemed to decide to in a way to harm the party they previously stood in support of and who pays their salaries, after using their positions to slam their leadership on spurious grounds and unfounded stories while not actually opposing the current government at all who are on record doing much worse.

That speaks imo to people of not strong principles who are out for their own benefit, not the benefit of the people. Perhaps they will change and present better, but at present that's the cut of the jib it seems to be. If you don't like the word traitor or traitorous I could alternatively have said backstabbers, self-interested, liars, or anything else of the sort. The fact the 'new party' is set up as a private company, already soliciting donations, but with no rules or regulations, doesn't seem to have any policies, and that when prominent member Chuka was asked couldn't name any Labour policies he disagrees with - yet felt disenfranchised enough he had to leave and strike out alone - all put them on thin ice from the off in my book. Before we even get into 'funny tinge'!


1. Tax payers pay their salaries

2. people get elected, NOT parties

3. Corbyn has failed to do what he promised to do when Labour supporters made it clear they wanted a referendum if they didnt get an election. He is refusing democracy, not the leavers who support the party policy. He is the one who puts personal opinion over party and country, not them. They know perfectly well that are risking their cushy MP wage, and future by not sitting there and doing what agenda-driven extremists are pushing us towards - the brink of No-Deal. Unlike all of the lying Brexiteers and those who pay lip service to Remainers, these people are prepared to put their own job, and personal well-being in the face of aggression, death-threats, and constant harrassment by people and the media, on the line. I'd say they are the ones who positively HAVE scruples, unlike those who know they are right and sit and say nothing, just like the leader of the Labour party does nothing because we all know he wants Brexit and is prepared to ruin the country if he thinks he can get into power on the back of it. Centrists who take the moral highground usually get slaughtered for it, so no-one has any illusions about rubbish terms like "self-interested" "backstabbers" and "liars" being applied to them while the Corby is stabbing his own supporters in the back, and lying about it by ignoring party policy because of his own self-interested aims.

This is not about mainstream Labour policies, this is about Brexit and calamitous leadership in both parties and there is NOTHING of self-interest in taking that route, quite the reverse.

Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 20 2019, 02:10 PM

Although I usually find myself agreeing with you, I don't on this point. These individuals stood and campaigned as Labour candidates and on Labour policy. Now they have left that and are still remaining - on full salary may I add. On the claim they were elected as individuals - if that's the case, why did they not stand as independents from the off? And why have they not called by-elections now based on their own independent priciples rather than paying that lip service while still happily taking a Labour salary?

Do they stand for a second referendum or against Brexit? Because they don't seem to have made much noise about that so far if that's the case.

And it's very difficult to observe how Corbyn is doing as Labour leader with the media against him the likes I have never seen before or historically. Put both the government and the opposition under equal and balanced scrutiny and we'll see who is better and who can get people onside. But consistently slamming the opposition to the point of misrepresentation, lies, and taking things out of context - while giving the sitting government an absolute free pass, I'm not here for that. And for the record I'm not even a Labour voter, I'm just concerned with fairness and unfairness. I judge these people for jumping on unconfirmed and misleading narratives and portraying them as fact because it suits them to be perceived as a neutral voice of reason, and they know that by being actively anti-Corbyn the media will get onside with them right away and give them an easy ride.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 20 2019, 02:44 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 20 2019, 12:44 PM) *
3. Corbyn has failed to do what he promised to do when Labour supporters made it clear they wanted a referendum if they didnt get an election. He is refusing democracy, not the leavers who support the party policy. He is the one who puts personal opinion over party and country, not them. They know perfectly well that are risking their cushy MP wage, and future by not sitting there and doing what agenda-driven extremists are pushing us towards - the brink of No-Deal. Unlike all of the lying Brexiteers and those who pay lip service to Remainers, these people are prepared to put their own job, and personal well-being in the face of aggression, death-threats, and constant harrassment by people and the media, on the line. I'd say they are the ones who positively HAVE scruples, unlike those who know they are right and sit and say nothing, just like the leader of the Labour party does nothing because we all know he wants Brexit and is prepared to ruin the country if he thinks he can get into power on the back of it. Centrists who take the moral highground usually get slaughtered for it, so no-one has any illusions about rubbish terms like "self-interested" "backstabbers" and "liars" being applied to them while the Corby is stabbing his own supporters in the back, and lying about it by ignoring party policy because of his own self-interested aims.


There used to be an unwritten rule that any discussion that went on long enough would end up talking about Nazis - but now ISTM it should be changed to Brexit. tongue.gif

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 20 2019, 07:34 PM

So the three Conservatives defected then. Unsurprisingly, it was Brexit that made them jump into TIG's arms, which helps underly the problems that the party will have when it comes to clear policy goals - outside of Brexit, there isn't as much to unite the ex-Labourites and ex-Tories, and so far their suggest policies are vanilla neo-liberalism that isn't a million miles away from Blairism, so they'll need to come up with some really interesting, headline grabbing initiatives soon, lest the wind is taken out of its sails and it loses its momentum, after already losing its Momentum.

Now, on to nomenclature, as how TIG is branded in the media/on social media will be important over the next few weeks, as if the "wrong" brand is set in the public's mind, then they will be forever tarnished with that name and won't be able to shake it off in the voters' heads. The original splitters will hope that they will be branded "The Magnificent Seven", as they have already been somewhat dubbed. I'm slightly disappointed they didn't go for S Club 7, buy hey ho, the original is better. What they don't want to be known as is the "Seven Dwarfs", as even in the politically-correct, current year that we live in, it still stings to be called a dwarf.

As for the 3 Tory defectors, they've already taken to brand themselves "The Three Amigos", which is a good start - it compliments the "Magnificent Seven" well, and its slightly Spanish, which helps with their pro-Europe credentials amongst the so-called "anywheres". What they don't want to be dubbed however, is the "Three Stooges", which would hurt them badly - after all, it's impossible to twist "stooge" into a positive, and once branded a stooge, your confirmation bias will see their every misstep as stooge-like activity.


Brett-Butler is available for political consultancy for the low cost of 5 Battenbergs a day.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 20 2019, 07:53 PM

The current group could style themselves The First XI.

Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 20 2019, 08:01 PM

Have you not seen them being called TINGE so far? I quite like that.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 20 2019, 08:07 PM

Tinge doesn't work, that misstep is already ancient history in TIG's fast-moving evolution, plus it's too easy to turn into a positive (and I'm presuming you're using the term as a negative).

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 20 2019, 08:09 PM

I'm afraid you've missed the boat (metaphorical or otherwise) on S Club 7.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/at-times-like-these-corbyn-is-his-own-worst-enemy

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 20 2019, 08:12 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 20 2019, 08:53 PM) *
The current group could style themselves The First XI.


I can see positives - it's a common term, "First" is synonymous with "best", and also hints that it's the start of a new wave, which will encourage others to see themselves as part of the "next" wave. The negatives - The word "First" is slightly tainted in political circles, with "Britain First" and "America First" having quite toxic undertones.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 20 2019, 08:19 PM

QUOTE(Pëpé Le Pew @ Feb 20 2019, 02:10 PM) *
Although I usually find myself agreeing with you, I don't on this point. These individuals stood and campaigned as Labour candidates and on Labour policy. Now they have left that and are still remaining - on full salary may I add. On the claim they were elected as individuals - if that's the case, why did they not stand as independents from the off? And why have they not called by-elections now based on their own independent priciples rather than paying that lip service while still happily taking a Labour salary?

Do they stand for a second referendum or against Brexit? Because they don't seem to have made much noise about that so far if that's the case.

And it's very difficult to observe how Corbyn is doing as Labour leader with the media against him the likes I have never seen before or historically. Put both the government and the opposition under equal and balanced scrutiny and we'll see who is better and who can get people onside. But consistently slamming the opposition to the point of misrepresentation, lies, and taking things out of context - while giving the sitting government an absolute free pass, I'm not here for that. And for the record I'm not even a Labour voter, I'm just concerned with fairness and unfairness. I judge these people for jumping on unconfirmed and misleading narratives and portraying them as fact because it suits them to be perceived as a neutral voice of reason, and they know that by being actively anti-Corbyn the media will get onside with them right away and give them an easy ride.


I'm anti-Tory, and left-central leaning, and I have been utterly depressed by Corbyn's useless leadership. His party, regardless of the usual Right-wing UK press, should be miles ahead, and he should be doing what his party wants: a second referendum and trying to halt Brexit. The reaosn all the MP's have left is because that's what they want and Corbyn isn't budging. Quite the reverse he's supported the Tories every step of the way while making bland statements here and there about Labour doing a better job of it without explaining exactly how or what he stands for, bar one Single Market stance that doesn't stand up to his red lines any more than May's does. I'm not biased against Labour, but I'm equally not fooled by what Corbyn says and what he does, his judgement leaves a lot to be desired, as does May's.

If Corbyn could be tolerated by a Labour he frequently voted & spoke against, then the same grace should be shown to others doing the same, and he should have stomped utterly on the campaign being carried out against them by Labour party members. They were voted in by the public, and their choicer should be respected whether they toe the party line or not (and they do, when it comes to Brexit, that's why they have left, or anti-semitism, or both). The previous party leader was of Jewish heritage, let's not forget, so it's come to something when MP's feel they are no longer welcome.

As Suedey has explained, you vote for the MP, not the party. They might represent a party, but their own views can be different and varied, and they can carry a personal popularity which the party benefits from. If it were the party that was elected then it wouldnt matter who stands, and when an MP dies they would just nominate someone else. That doesn't happen because people are not identikit robots who can be replaced. As far as I'm concerned, the leavers are following party Brexit policy, and Corbyn isn't. He wanted Brexit, has always wanted to leave the EU, and his campaign was deliberately weak and wishy-washy in spite of the membership and party being largely remain. Put it down to sour grapes if you like, but I believe that made a difference to the result and I won't ever forgive him any more than I have ever forgiven Thatcher for what she did with the help of far-left Labour-party-ruiners back in the 80's.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on Jezza, as I do with my Labour Councillor mate....

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 20 2019, 08:28 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 20 2019, 07:53 PM) *
The current group could style themselves The First XI.


I'm sure it won't be that polite, sadly, not least because there'll be more than that if the two main parties don't take the kick up the arse as a learning experience and just dig their heels in. Given the majority of them are females who have been mercilessly slagged-off by their own party members and non-party extremists I should imagine there'll be loads of sexist references and jolly quips about sewing and doing the ironing instead. Oh how the LOL's will be gushing....


Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 20 2019, 08:39 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 20 2019, 08:28 PM) *
I'm sure it won't be that polite, sadly, not least because there'll be more than that if the two main parties don't take the kick up the arse as a learning experience and just dig their heels in. Given the majority of them are females who have been mercilessly slagged-off by their own party members and non-party extremists I should imagine there'll be loads of sexist references and jolly quips about sewing and doing the ironing instead. Oh how the LOL's will be gushing....

But the current group will still be the first XI.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 20 2019, 08:46 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 20 2019, 08:39 PM) *
But the current group will still be the first XI.


laugh.gif

Posted by: The Snake Feb 20 2019, 09:44 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 20 2019, 07:34 PM) *
So the three Conservatives defected then. Unsurprisingly, it was Brexit that made them jump into TIG's arms, which helps underly the problems that the party will have when it comes to clear policy goals - outside of Brexit, there isn't as much to unite the ex-Labourites and ex-Tories, and so far their suggest policies are vanilla neo-liberalism that isn't a million miles away from Blairism, so they'll need to come up with some really interesting, headline grabbing initiatives soon, lest the wind is taken out of its sails and it loses its momentum, after already losing its Momentum.

Now, on to nomenclature, as how TIG is branded in the media/on social media will be important over the next few weeks, as if the "wrong" brand is set in the public's mind, then they will be forever tarnished with that name and won't be able to shake it off in the voters' heads. The original splitters will hope that they will be branded "The Magnificent Seven", as they have already been somewhat dubbed. I'm slightly disappointed they didn't go for S Club 7, buy hey ho, the original is better. What they don't want to be known as is the "Seven Dwarfs", as even in the politically-correct, current year that we live in, it still stings to be called a dwarf.

As for the 3 Tory defectors, they've already taken to brand themselves "The Three Amigos", which is a good start - it compliments the "Magnificent Seven" well, and its slightly Spanish, which helps with their pro-Europe credentials amongst the so-called "anywheres". What they don't want to be dubbed however, is the "Three Stooges", which would hurt them badly - after all, it's impossible to twist "stooge" into a positive, and once branded a stooge, your confirmation bias will see their every misstep as stooge-like activity.
Brett-Butler is available for political consultancy for the low cost of 5 Battenbergs a day.


You gotta feel sorry for the poor Lib Dems though, they have had their position in politics taken by this more exciting new party.

The Lib Dem MPs should probably just disband the party tbh and all join this new party en masse. Certainly that's what I would do if I was Vince Cable. The Lib Dem name has been tainted with the coalition and tuition fees associations.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 20 2019, 09:50 PM

The Lib Dems have a well-oiled political infrastructure, plus an incredibly healthy support at local level with over 1,500 councillors, as well as a pretty significant presence in the House of Lords. They aren't going to throw all that away overnight to step behind a movement that's barely a week old that has no infrastructure not even technically a political party yet. They could enter electoral pacts with TIG, but that could lead to even more comparisons with the SDP, which TIG is bitterly trying to avoid at the moment.

Although you do raise a good point - what differentiates TIG from the Lib Dems at the moment? That's something they're going to have to work on going forward, as even now I can't see much to differentiate them, with the except of where they have come from.

Posted by: Harve Feb 20 2019, 11:09 PM

Oh I'm 80% sure that the Lib Dems will end up in a pact with TIG, when it relaunches as a party. It would make sense for the Lib Dems to contest seats quite widely, as they always have done, while the TIG focus their resources in Remain-leaning marginals, which is very dangerous as the vast majority of these would ordinarily go to Labour.*

I'm not sure if they'll be ready for a June election though. And I don't know if the TIG will stand new candidates or if they will simply stick to those 11.

*Found some interesting data about the size of swings against the Tories even in fairly strongly Leave seats like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s (62% leave), be it to the Lib Dems or to Labour, and this has certain implications. But I'll write about that at a more sensible time of the day. :')

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 21 2019, 06:28 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 20 2019, 08:19 PM) *
I'm anti-Tory, and left-central leaning, and I have been utterly depressed by Corbyn's useless leadership. His party, regardless of the usual Right-wing UK press, should be miles ahead, and he should be doing what his party wants: a second referendum and trying to halt Brexit. The reaosn all the MP's have left is because that's what they want and Corbyn isn't budging.


(Most of) his MP's may want to stop Brexit, but if even 10% of Labour voters want to Leave, those are votes he cannot afford to lose - and we all know his personal feelings on Brexit...

Posted by: Handmade Heaven Feb 21 2019, 06:59 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 21 2019, 06:28 AM) *
(Most of) his MP's may want to stop Brexit, but if even 10% of Labour voters want to Leave, those are votes he cannot afford to lose - and we all know his personal feelings on Brexit...

So, in your hypothetical scenario, he can’t afford to leave 10% of voters but he can afford to lose the potential 90% that voted remain?

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 21 2019, 07:15 AM

QUOTE(Handmade Heaven @ Feb 21 2019, 06:59 AM) *
So, in your hypothetical scenario, he can’t afford to leave 10% of voters but he can afford to lose the potential 90% that voted remain?


Aren't you assuming that Labour's Remain voters are so focussed on Brexit that that's all that matters?

I'm guessing that only a tiny % of voters are actually prepared to desert the party over Brexit alone, but when you're trailing in the polls, you can't afford to alienate any of your core support...

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 21 2019, 10:05 AM

Aren't you assuming the same about Labour's Leave voters? Point is, I would guess that the numbers of people prepared to make party choices based on that axis are of similar numbers. The crisis in Labour is partly because they have been unable to identify which is the stronger force and have ended up looking weak to all on the issue.

One of the key (and indeed only) things apparent about TIG so far is that they are all staunchly Remain, joining only the Liberal Democrats in parties we can say that about. For those that do care about Remain above all others but stuck with Labour in the hopes of actually having a vote mattering, this at the moment is a 'rock-the-boat gently' level. Much more, with rumours that this is far from their peak size abounding, and a possible, and logical, merging with the Lib Dem infrastructure, and a powerful Remain party may actually emerge in the House Of Commons that people can put their vote to without feeling wasted.

That is, still very much a maybe. But it does seem like that is among their aims.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 21 2019, 11:39 AM

It’s been 24 hours without a defection. Could somebody try turning politics off and in again to check that things are still working?

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 21 2019, 11:41 AM

Spacing it out, right? Too many too quickly and fatigue sets in, more effective when the next round starts. Also we're right next to the breaking point for the government's working majority, any more potential Tory defectors might want to stay put for now until the group is more established in infrastructure and can actually fight a potential election in the wake of a government collapse.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 21 2019, 11:44 AM

True, although I imagined that there would be at least one on a daily basis for the next while to keep the press momentum going. Still, the day is young.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 21 2019, 02:48 PM

QUOTE(Iz~ @ Feb 21 2019, 11:41 AM) *
Spacing it out, right? Too many too quickly and fatigue sets in, more effective when the next round starts. Also we're right next to the breaking point for the government's working majority, any more potential Tory defectors might want to stay put for now until the group is more established in infrastructure and can actually fight a potential election in the wake of a government collapse.


That's assuming that Tory defectors would actually want to bring the gov't down - they might choose to abstain on a NC vote.

Not to mention that a GE would surely see a swift end to their gambit, as they surely wouldn't survive a test of their popularity under their new colours!

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 21 2019, 08:54 PM

Nomenclature update - it seems that the group are being dubbed the "TIGgers", which is somewhat endearing, yet slightly ridiculous. I just wonder how long until we hear someone says "the wonderful thing about TIGgers is, we're the only ones" (that are single minded opposed to Brexit in no uncertain terms).

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 22 2019, 07:19 AM

QUOTE(handmade heaven2 @ Feb 18 2019, 07:42 PM) *
ive also signed up*.* i would love to stand in either my home or uni constituency


It'd be more beneficial if you just stuffed that £500 in a charity box... heehee.gif

QUOTE(Envoirment @ Feb 19 2019, 10:25 PM) *
An 8th Labour MP, Joan Ryan, has quit the party and is joining the indepenant group - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47300832

Interesting to see the new independent group seems to be gaining a little momentum.


I thought 'Momentum' was the problem. wink.gif

QUOTE(Harve @ Feb 20 2019, 11:09 PM) *
*Found some interesting data about the size of swings against the Tories even in fairly strongly Leave seats like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s (62% leave), be it to the Lib Dems or to Labour, and this has certain implications. But I'll write about that at a more sensible time of the day. :')


By the time of the next GE, Brexit is likely to be old news, though...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 22 2019, 08:20 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 22 2019, 07:19 AM) *
By the time of the next GE, Brexit is likely to be old news, though...


You're nothing is not consistently optimistic!

Bitter divides last for generations.

The economy may have crashed due to Brexit or shot the roof with success due to Brexit.

We might still be arguing over trade deals across the world.

We may all have died from sheer tedium at having Brexit trade deals latest for the next decade......


Posted by: vidcapper Feb 22 2019, 08:40 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 22 2019, 08:20 AM) *
We may all have died from sheer tedium at (having) Brexit


I'm nearly there already. wink.gif

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 22 2019, 12:44 PM

Ian Austin has become the latest to quit Labour, citing anti Semitism in the party as a reason (he is the son of Jewish refugees). Although interestingly, he is not joining the Tiggers, which some have suggested means that there could be a SECOND breakaway group coming from the Labour/Conservatives, one that isn’t as anti-Brexit as the Tiggers (Austin votes remain, but ruled out o 2nd referendum). May not happen, but interesting nonetheless.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 22 2019, 03:05 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 22 2019, 12:44 PM) *
Ian Austin has become the latest to quit Labour, citing anti Semitism in the party as a reason (he is the son of Jewish refugees). Although interestingly, he is not joining the Tiggers, which some have suggested means that there could be a SECOND breakaway group coming from the Labour/Conservatives, one that isn’t as anti-Brexit as the Tiggers (Austin votes remain, but ruled out o 2nd referendum). May not happen, but interesting nonetheless.


I suggest we change to STV, then parties could accommodate a larger range of opinions teresa.gif

Posted by: Harve Feb 22 2019, 04:55 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 22 2019, 08:19 AM) *
By the time of the next GE, Brexit is likely to be old news, though...

The UK will be arguing about its relationship with Europe for the rest of your life. And so many other things have also become a proxy war around Brexit.

Even if the withdrawal agreement passes in March as it is and all our political institutions survive the next few months without collapsing further, it's still in many ways a blind Brexit which takes us into a transition period without a definite answer to the customs union/single market question, nor a way of keeping the Irish border open in the long term.

Posted by: Steve201 Feb 22 2019, 11:03 PM

Not impressed with these defectors - what will their economic views be? Probably agree with each other as they're all pro drip down economics. Umuna states he wants fresh new politics but he wants to undo the result of a referendum result and return to the economics of pre 2008 - does he not understand or care about the people who voted leave and why they felt the need to do this?

Ultimately Brexit for me is a question of what's more important economics or democracy!

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 23 2019, 07:53 AM

QUOTE(Steve201 @ Feb 22 2019, 11:03 PM) *
Not impressed with these defectors - what will their economic views be? Probably agree with each other as they're all pro drip down economics. Umuna states he wants fresh new politics but he wants to undo the result of a referendum result and return to the economics of pre 2008 - does he not understand or care about the people who voted leave and why they felt the need to do this?

Ultimately Brexit for me is a question of what's more important economics or democracy!


Hi Steve!

I think 2008 was more democratic and inclusive and tolerant than 2019 is. The banking crisis gave birth, as economic downturns always do, to intolerance and extremism. The problem was people in power who believed in self-monitoring against all previous laws and common sense and greed. Politics in 2019 is very very broken in the UK & in the US. If you have mainstream parties attacking their own members for believing in consensus politics and reason then there is something seriously wrong with those parties, cos that ain't democracy in any shape or form, it's bullying into submission. If they can't win their argument using calm reason and by being tolerant then they have already lost the argument.

If you make a decision to economically self-harm (Hard No-deal Brexit) then democracy will be the first casualty, and society will get even less democratic and extreme and desperate people turn to ever-increasing extreme liars using them to gain power. That's the history of the world I'm afraid.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 23 2019, 08:13 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 23 2019, 07:53 AM) *
If you make a decision to self-harm (Hard No-deal Brexit) then democracy will be the first casualty, and society will get even less democratic and extreme and desperate people turn to ever-increasing extreme liars using them to gain power. That's the history of the world.


I like think we've learned a *bit* since 1930's Germany...

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 23 2019, 09:58 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 23 2019, 08:13 AM) *
I like think we've learned a *bit* since 1930's Germany...


Enough to avoid that extreme one would hope. Sadly, current events in lots of places show lots of angry people trying to impose their will on other people because they are very very angry and therefore they think anything they do and say is right because they are right and others are wrong, even if they believe in a flat earth and facts are inconveniencing their beliefs. That leads to warring factions and helps no-one.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 23 2019, 02:50 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 23 2019, 09:58 AM) *
Enough to avoid that extreme one would hope. Sadly, current events in lots of places show lots of angry people trying to impose their will on other people because they are very very angry and therefore they think anything they do and say is right because they are right and others are wrong, even if they believe in a flat earth and facts are inconveniencing their beliefs.


Yes, but the politically correct don't know any better, so I forgive them... teresa.gif

Posted by: Steve201 Feb 23 2019, 04:15 PM

It takes time but I'm sure the uk will be ok in the long term economically even if the short term is tough as businesses and everything else readjusts.

You just can't overturn a referendum result because you don't agree. And that from someone like me who never agreed with having one in the first place.

In a lot of instances especially in Irish history when we voted for independence economically it clear was going to be tough for many years but we still wanted independence for many different reasons(again Brexit proving why the UK doesn't work equally between all nations/dominance by English mainly Tory MPS) and all economic reason had to wait for the constitutional position to be resolved. But things work out and Ireland is a great example of a pluralist democratic European nation. Obviously Europe has helped a lot but also that link to the USA.

When Ireland voted for independence in the 1918 election they had to take matters into their own hands (unfort through violence as well) because any time democracy seemed obvious the rules were changed(Ireland campaigned for self government from the 1870s or even further back to OConnell in the 1840s) by the rich and powerful (Unionist/Tory governments/Imperialists) which led to violence as the injustice was clear. I think the same could be seen if the result of the referendum isn't respected.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 23 2019, 04:21 PM

QUOTE(Steve201 @ Feb 23 2019, 04:15 PM) *
It takes time but I'm sure the uk will be ok in the long term economically even if the short term is tough as businesses and everything else readjusts.

You just can't overturn a referendum result because you don't agree. And that from someone like me who never agreed with having one in the first place.

In a lot of instances especially in Irish history when we voted for independence economically it clear was going to be tough for many years but we still wanted independence for many different reasons(again Brexit proving why the UK doesn't work equally between all nations/dominance by English mainly Tory MPS) and all economic reason had to wait for the constitutional position to be resolved. But things work out and Ireland is a great example of a pluralist democratic European nation. Obviously Europe has helped a lot but also that link to the USA.

When Ireland voted for independence in the 1918 election they had to take matters into their own hands (unfort through violence as well) because any time democracy seemed obvious the rules were changed(Ireland campaigned for self government from the 1870s or even further back to OConnell in the 1840s) by the rich and powerful (Unionist/Tory governments/Imperialists) which led to violence as the injustice was clear. I think the same could be seen if the result of the referendum isn't respected.

If the referendum is advisory (as it was), the government is perfectly entitled to ignore the result.

Posted by: Steve201 Feb 23 2019, 04:23 PM

Advisory or not it was a clear choice which Mr Cameron made clear (for his own political and self party reasons) when he announced it. There was no way the result was going to come and the leaders were going to ignore it as advisory. Nearly all politicians called for article 50 to be put forward the morning after the referendum. If they didn't ukip would have walked the next GE!

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 23 2019, 04:33 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 23 2019, 04:21 PM) *
If the referendum is advisory (as it was), the government is perfectly entitled to ignore the result.


But that would have nonetheless been utterly foolish.

You don't spend millions on a referendum, only to say 'you voted the wrong way so we are going to ignore you!'

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 23 2019, 05:18 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 23 2019, 04:33 PM) *
But that would have nonetheless been utterly foolish.

You don't spend millions on a referendum, only to say 'you voted the wrong way so we are going to ignore you!'

Utterly foolish is a pretty good description of Cameron.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 23 2019, 05:19 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 23 2019, 04:33 PM) *
But that would have nonetheless been utterly foolish.

You don't spend millions on a referendum, only to say 'you voted the wrong way so we are going to ignore you!'

It would have been perfectly legitimate to say that the outcome was too close to be used as justification for such a huge change. The fact that the Leave campaign broke the law merely adds to the justification for not going ahead.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 23 2019, 07:19 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 23 2019, 04:33 PM) *
But that would have nonetheless been utterly foolish.

You don't spend millions on a referendum, only to say 'you voted the wrong way so we are going to ignore you!'


....which is why we have a final referendum on the final deal to test whether the public is happy with what they got vs what they were promised.

That's what Rees-Mogg wanted before he saw pound signs in front of his eyes (and he thought he needed to get people on board). The reason there won't be rioting in the streets in that scenario is because it's called "democracy" and you can't argue that Leave were crooks and lied and accepted foreign money, that the government failed to deliver, that the country is split and every argument that will last for eternity between the two sides when you can conclusively prove via a bona fide unambiguous question about a document that everyone can read and decide on, no doubts, no lies, no foreign cash, no bias. Whichever side wins, wins fairly, and that is conclusively the end of the matter for a generation.

Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 23 2019, 10:16 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 23 2019, 07:53 AM) *
Hi Steve!

I think 2008 was more democratic and inclusive and tolerant than 2019 is. The banking crisis gave birth, as economic downturns always do, to intolerance and extremism. The problem was people in power who believed in self-monitoring against all previous laws and common sense and greed. Politics in 2019 is very very broken in the UK & in the US. If you have mainstream parties attacking their own members for believing in consensus politics and reason then there is something seriously wrong with those parties, cos that ain't democracy in any shape or form, it's bullying into submission. If they can't win their argument using calm reason and by being tolerant then they have already lost the argument.

If you make a decision to economically self-harm (Hard No-deal Brexit) then democracy will be the first casualty, and society will get even less democratic and extreme and desperate people turn to ever-increasing extreme liars using them to gain power. That's the history of the world I'm afraid.


Such a good comment. Just wanted to agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 24 2019, 06:43 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 23 2019, 05:19 PM) *
It would have been perfectly legitimate to say that the outcome was too close to be used as justification for such a huge change.

The fact that the Leave campaign broke the law merely adds to the justification for not going ahead.


1. Then they should have inserted such a clause in the referendum bill - but they didn't.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been a formal legal challenge to the legitimacy of the result on that basis?

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 23 2019, 07:19 PM) *
....which is why we have a final referendum on the final deal to test whether the public is happy with what they got vs what they were promised.


You're talking as if that had already been decided... tongue.gif

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 24 2019, 08:25 AM

QUOTE(Pëpé Le Pew @ Feb 23 2019, 10:16 PM) *
Such a good comment. Just wanted to agree wholeheartedly.


awww thanks Pepe! heart.gif

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 24 2019, 08:30 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 24 2019, 06:43 AM) *
1. Then they should have inserted such a clause in the referendum bill - but they didn't.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been a formal legal challenge to the legitimacy of the result on that basis?
You're talking as if that had already been decided... tongue.gif


No there hasnt been legal challenge to the result in the UK - the case in the States is ongoing and delving ever-deeper into evidence and has spilled-out into people involved in Brexit being required. That our government chooses to allow foreign interference in the democratic process without comment says it all. Pretty sure if it were reversed, and the result reversed, Brexiteers would have forced Cameron into an enquiry by now and demanded another referendum (as Farage was doing anyway when he thought he'd lost by a whisker, and Rees-Mogg did too when he thought that might swing more votes his way giving the public a final say)

YCT me: just grammatical error laugh.gif

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 24 2019, 08:33 AM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 24 2019, 08:30 AM) *
No there hasnt been legal challenge to the result in the UK - the case in the States is ongoing and delving ever-deeper into evidence and has spilled-out into people involved in Brexit being required. That our government chooses to allow foreign interference in the democratic process without comment says it all. Pretty sure if it were reversed, and the result reversed, Brexiteers would have forced Cameron into an enquiry by now and demanded another referendum (as Farage was doing anyway when he thought he'd lost by a whisker, and Rees-Mogg did too when he thought that might swing more votes his way giving the public a final say)

YCT me: just grammatical error laugh.gif


Only a month left for a challenge anyway...

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 24 2019, 08:59 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 24 2019, 06:43 AM) *
1. Then they should have inserted such a clause in the referendum bill - but they didn't.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there hasn't been a formal legal challenge to the legitimacy of the result on that basis?
You're talking as if that had already been decided... tongue.gif

No, it’s the other way round. If the referendum was to be binding, there would have been a clause to say so. There would also have been provision for overturning the result. The concept of overturning an opinion poll is illogical.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 24 2019, 09:24 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 24 2019, 08:59 AM) *
No, it’s the other way round. If the referendum was to be binding, there would have been a clause to say so. There would also have been provision for overturning the result. The concept of overturning an opinion poll is illogical.


I have no idea why Remainers are so fixated on the 'advisory' nature of referendums, because anyone with common sense can see that it would be political suicide to dare to actually ignore the result of one...

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 24 2019, 09:47 AM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 24 2019, 09:24 AM) *
I have no idea why Remainers are so fixated on the 'advisory' nature of referendums, because anyone with common sense can see that it would be political suicide to dare to actually ignore the result of one...

How many more times?

A binding referendum would have had a threshold.

A binding referendum would have had provision for the result to be annulled if the winning side broke the law.

The Leave side would have been under more pressure to produce something vaguely resembling a plan if the vote was to be binding.

Posted by: Steve201 Feb 24 2019, 10:27 AM

Anyway let's not get carried away with Brexit this is about the new Independent group.

As I said they really are just a 2019 cover version of Blairism/New Labour/Centrism. Let's face it centrism is simply Thatcherism with diversity quotas, right wing economics with a splattering of left wing social views. A political slight of hand by appointing a cabinet with the most females ever then selling off the NHS or being friendly with private water firms and letting new them take you out for lunch while opposing water nationalisation. Or like a former compassionate Tory PM who ushers in same sex marriage while pushing the poorest to the brink with horrendous austerity. The reason they support remaining in the EU is to continue this consensus which has failed so many northern English towns where the people have no future and has led them to seek the extreme avenue of leaving the EU as the only way of teaching the Ummunas/Soubreys/Campbell's a lesson as they've never listened before.

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 24 2019, 10:35 AM

Also there's the notion of political suicide. You know how short the memories of the public are? The referendum was about as far away from another election as could have been planned, had we stuck to the Fixed Term Act like the government was supposed to.

All the government had to do was announce that due to the close result they were 'taking it under advisement', and that they would enact Article 50 when they had a clear, workable plan and deal for Leaving that would benefit everyone. If that didn't happen by 2020, I guarantee you that the vast majority of the public that isn't ardent Eurosceptics by nature would have forgotten it happened, as it would not have dominated news cycles for the entire intervening period. Who was talking about the AV referendum in 2015 besides political nerds?

It would have been a perfect chance for Corbyn to go full eurosceptic in 2020, but then the Tories could point how their plan for leaving is getting along and we could have a reasonable debate about the future that isn't 'tear it all down by this arbitrary date'. I think a hypothetical 2020 election based around how we are continuing with the aim of leaving the European project wouldn't have been so bad and not necessarily political suicide for the Tories. But sadly, politicians are shortsighted and very zero-sum. Also there is the problem of the 2019 EU elections but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the overlap between people who vote in those and those who thought we've 'left Europe already' is quite small.

The way it's happened has just thrown a load of 'obviously apocalyptic' doom in because of how it's been mishandled and how hopeless it seems, and that's not good for anyone.

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 24 2019, 10:42 AM

QUOTE(Steve201 @ Feb 24 2019, 10:27 AM) *
Anyway let's not get carried away with Brexit this is about the new Independent group.

As I said they really are just a 2019 cover version of Blairism/New Labour/Centrism. Let's face it centrism is simply Thatcherism with diversity quotas, right wing economics with a splattering of left wing social views. A political slight of hand by appointing a cabinet with the most females ever then selling off the NHS or being friendly with private water firms and letting new them take you out for lunch while opposing water nationalisation. Or like a former compassionate Tory PM who ushers in same sex marriage while pushing the poorest to the brink with horrendous austerity. The reason they support remaining in the EU is to continue this consensus which has failed so many northern English towns where the people have no future and has led them to seek the extreme avenue of leaving the EU as the only way of teaching the Ummunas/Soubreys/Campbell's a lesson as they've never listened before.


All of that is true, and centrism isn't without its problems as an ideology, but considering so much of the public is selfish and will vote for right-wing ideas that benefit themselves over others no matter what, I'd much rather have a group like this fronting that side of the spectrum than the currently corrupt and power-crazed Tory party.

Nearly every country has this centrist party that isn't necessarily just holding onto power for the sake of it but is just widely popular because of being a bit big-tent. In other European countries they have those that are members of the EPP - the standard centre-right group in the European Parliament. Notably, our nominally centre-right party left that to found their own more right-wing group. Which says something about a gap in the market that should be filled here.

(and a potentially powerful TIG certainly wouldn't join S&D, maybe ALDE but it depends how liberal they're feeling and I don't get the impression that they'd actually be all that liberal UNLESS a merger with the Lib Dems happens)

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 24 2019, 11:21 AM

No. Centrism is not a bad thing. Extremism and intolerance is a bad thing. It is totally justifiable to criticise both sides of an argument in a 2-party system where both sides are moving ever-more extreme and anyone pointing that out is the enemy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/why-binary-politics-leaves-britain-all-at-sea

Accusing anyone that doesn't agree with their personal view of what is right and wrong of being selfish is just egotistical in the extreme. I believe in social care policies and support them, but I don't believe in Corbynism which is his own view of the world that was tried in the 80's and allowed the rise of Thatcher. Thatcher wasn't centrist, she was right-wing. May is right-wing. Blair was not right-wing, he had many centrist and left policies, achieved peace in Northern Ireland and now the left under Corbyn is throwing that away willingly risking troubles again. Lib-Dems are centrist and were against the Iraq war, along with Corbyn, while both Labour and Tories supported it. Corby loves Venezuelan politics despite the absolute mess it's in, as it clings on to power and policies that have failed the people and made them worse off - despite having oil riches! Blinkered.

Labels are just handy slagging-off points for one-dimensional arguments that fail to see the world is complex, much as the Left and the Right insist it is in their simplistic "I'm right and f*** everyone who disagrees" attitudes that should be listened to. One thing Vidcapper and I agree on 100% is that the UK political system is geared around the 2 parties keeping their stranglehold on power.

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 24 2019, 01:32 PM

A problem with centrism, I find, is that it seems to be often used (quite often unfaithfully by those pretending to be centrists) to support a 'both sides are equally bad' mantra, which is just as one-dimensional and incorrect. At times, in history, people following leftist ideologies have done worse things, and at times, it has been right ideologies. Right now, with the left tending towards social democracy, and the right tending towards disaster capitalism, I know which broad grouping I think is better... right now, on a general scale, and which is healthier for the world to support. It's not egotistical to have a preferred side that you believe to be more generally correct. My comment about right selfishness is not actually meant to be an entirely negative dig, but more the generic principle of 'you vote right to benefit yourself, left to benefit society', hence why there will always be elements of the two sides in everything as long as our political systems remain intact.

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 24 2019, 11:21 AM) *
Labels are just handy slagging-off points for one-dimensional arguments that fail to see the world is complex, much as the Left and the Right insist it is in their simplistic "I'm right and f*** everyone who disagrees" attitudes that should be listened to. One thing Vidcapper and I agree on 100% is that the UK political system is geared around the 2 parties keeping their stranglehold on power.


This, I do agree with. We use them as it's convenient, but at differing times I consider myself to hold both left and centrist views, the latter when I recognise that some of my wants are not pragmatic. But ultimately I also dislike using such overplayed labels as it does indeed tribalise things too much.

I do find it astonishing when so many parties I would probably support devour each other over what seems like minutiae. That latest defection, Ian Austin, not joining the new group really set some eyebrows raising. It's not pragmatic in the slightest and ultimately gives me the feeling that this experiment will fizzle out if they cannot unite around SOMETHING.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Feb 24 2019, 02:06 PM

QUOTE(Iz~ @ Feb 24 2019, 01:32 PM) *
A problem with centrism, I find, is that it seems to be often used (quite often unfaithfully by those pretending to be centrists) to support a 'both sides are equally bad' mantra, which is just as one-dimensional and incorrect. At times, in history, people following leftist ideologies have done worse things, and at times, it has been right ideologies. Right now, with the left tending towards social democracy, and the right tending towards disaster capitalism, I know which broad grouping I think is better... right now, on a general scale, and which is healthier for the world to support. It's not egotistical to have a preferred side that you believe to be more generally correct. My comment about right selfishness is not actually meant to be an entirely negative dig, but more the generic principle of 'you vote right to benefit yourself, left to benefit society', hence why there will always be elements of the two sides in everything as long as our political systems remain intact.
This, I do agree with. We use them as it's convenient, but at differing times I consider myself to hold both left and centrist views, the latter when I recognise that some of my wants are not pragmatic. But ultimately I also dislike using such overplayed labels as it does indeed tribalise things too much.

I do find it astonishing when so many parties I would probably support devour each other over what seems like minutiae. That latest defection, Ian Austin, not joining the new group really set some eyebrows raising. It's not pragmatic in the slightest and ultimately gives me the feeling that this experiment will fizzle out if they cannot unite around SOMETHING.


Sorry Iz, I wasn't focusing on any particular comment by you, or Steve, sorry if that's how it came over.

I agree with your overview that broadly-speaking disaster-capitalism is wrong, and I slagged off New Labour (and Blair in particular) relentlessly for clinging to Thatcherite banking obsessions - Blair's 2 massive mistakes were Iraq and not sorting out soaring debt levels and greed-based dangerous loans and megabanks after Thatcher allowed them to do anything they liked, followed by half the Western world who had learned nothing about the 20's and 30's and consequential legislation designed to avoid it happening again. That economic disaster led to Nazis and World War. Further economic disasters could lead anywhere.

Most of Western Europe has achieved social-based policies and fairness, arguably more so than the UK at times, without having 2-party far-left centre-left centre-right far-right animosity, and to boot set a template for much of the former Soviet states, which were not in any sense free & democratic. Communism failed in every place it was tried because it was state-imposed undemocratic and ultimately corrupt and nepotism-based, so it's astonishing that suddenly Labour is allowing in former discredited anti-democratic people while losing sight of the main point of Labour: to counter the Tories excesses by not becoming unelectable and looking after those who need help. 32% currently suggests that two-thirds of the nation don't view them as serious government-material despite 10 years of austerity and misery. That's not good for Labour and it's not good for the country.

Any new party would need to avoid the main problems with the existing ones, and pick up on the policies that most sane people agree with. I'm not optimistic they will do anything other than fizzle out at the next election, but in a democracy people should be free to follow their conscience and take that risk, even if it means they lose everything and piss off their party, if the alternative is standing by, saying nothing while disagreeable policies are being carried out.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Feb 24 2019, 02:17 PM

QUOTE(Iz~ @ Feb 24 2019, 01:32 PM) *
That latest defection, Ian Austin, not joining the new group really set some eyebrows raising. It's not pragmatic in the slightest and ultimately gives me the feeling that this experiment will fizzle out if they cannot unite around SOMETHING.


Not really- he has recently been voting with the government.. he was https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-01-29b.667.0&s=speaker%3A10131#g774.0 to vote against Yvette Cooper's no-deal amendment last month and only 4 to vote with the government - when they lost the other week on this motion: that this House welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement of 12 February 2019; reiterates support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this House on 29 January 2019 and notes that discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing.

His majority in the 2017 election plummeted to a PERILOUS 22. So he'll be gone soon anyway..

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 24 2019, 02:45 PM

Indeed, the problems with the term "centrist" is that it means something different to everybody. I've been calling myself a centrist on here since before being a centrist was cool, but I've usually prefaced it by calling myself the "wrong kind of centrist", due to being economically on the left, in favour of greater nationalisation and a generous yet trampoline-like welfare system, whilst being, for lack of a better term, more "conservative" on social issues. A centrist party of that sort would gain great support if it ever were to strongly emerge, as there are quite a lot of people who would fit more into that base whose views aren't matched on a UK-wide basis by any mainstream party (perhaps a few individuals who would be classed as "Blue Labour" or "Red Tory", but no party machine).

Of course, if such a party were to emerge, it would face a two-pronged attack, from the right-leaning traditional media for its economic policies, and from the left-leaning media and Twitterati for its social policies - if any member of said movement was to so much as let off an ill-timed fart, the entire media landscape would pounce and tar the entire movement with the same brush, killing it off straight away.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 24 2019, 03:03 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 24 2019, 11:21 AM) *
One thing Vidcapper and I agree on 100% is that the UK political system is geared around the 2 parties keeping their stranglehold on power.


Also, in our system, a centrist vote is seen as, and often *is*, more a protest vote than a solid endorsement of middle-ground politics. That's partly because they have to rely on policy 'scraps' that the main parties have little interest in.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Feb 24 2019, 04:53 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 24 2019, 03:03 PM) *
Also, in our system, a centrist vote is seen as, and often *is*, more a protest vote than a solid endorsement of middle-ground politics. That's partly because they have to rely on policy 'scraps' that the main parties have little interest in.

If they have so little interest in those ‘scraps”, why do they steal so many of them?

Posted by: Iz~ Feb 24 2019, 05:03 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 24 2019, 02:45 PM) *
Indeed, the problems with the term "centrist" is that it means something different to everybody. I've been calling myself a centrist on here since before being a centrist was cool, but I've usually prefaced it by calling myself the "wrong kind of centrist", due to being economically on the left, in favour of greater nationalisation and a generous yet trampoline-like welfare system, whilst being, for lack of a better term, more "conservative" on social issues. A centrist party of that sort would gain great support if it ever were to strongly emerge, as there are quite a lot of people who would fit more into that base whose views aren't matched on a UK-wide basis by any mainstream party (perhaps a few individuals who would be classed as "Blue Labour" or "Red Tory", but no party machine).

Of course, if such a party were to emerge, it would face a two-pronged attack, from the right-leaning traditional media for its economic policies, and from the left-leaning media and Twitterati for its social policies - if any member of said movement was to so much as let off an ill-timed fart, the entire media landscape would pounce and tar the entire movement with the same brush, killing it off straight away.


Quite similar to European style 'Christian democracy' then, if I understand that philosophy correctly. Whose parties makes up a large part of the European EPP, another reason why it's quite strange that the UK doesn't have a popular party that matches it, if it's popular in so many other countries, what has gone differently here? You might guess the Tories should have that niche, but they've lurched further right than they should have and certainly don't have an economic-left policy.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 24 2019, 05:21 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 24 2019, 04:53 PM) *
If they have so little interest in those ‘scraps”, why do they steal so many of them?


That's the real mystery... smile.gif

Posted by: Pëpé Le Pew Feb 24 2019, 05:56 PM

Agree 100% with Iz, re the 'both sides are equally bad'. I am really up in arms that the BBC and other media outlets seem obsessed with trying to shift the narrative in it seems nearly every story to bring it around to that position. Sometimes things are just....worse than other things, that's not a shocking position to take.

Another point I feel is often (but maybe esp here with this new TIG) relevant is that this whole tendency to vote rightwing, for people to default to it, for that section to pick up a broad swathe of votes by default....really ISN'T a UK-wide occurrence. It's an English occurence. So much of the whole political landscape of the country right now is a largely, dare I even say uniquely English infight, as certain sectors that have been for decades now dependent and reliant on default support have felt that support shift and fall away, without preparation or awareness for what else to do to either bring them back or win over other groups to replace them.

Are the TIG MPs not completely English? And on that note...aren't really, all of the main faces we get in politics, except those clearly allocated space to be the token non-English e.g. the Plaid Cymru woman, Nicola Sturgeon, and occasionally Mhairi Black, besides of course dear Arlene (while being consistently misrepresented by the British media as a sole leader of NI). As an outsider that just seems really really apparent and yet nobody in the English media OR public really seems to have picked up on it. (not laying that towards any of yourselves btw, I mean in the wider sphere of writers and commentators etc.)

Posted by: Brett-Butler Feb 26 2019, 08:24 PM

QUOTE(Iz~ @ Feb 24 2019, 06:03 PM) *
Quite similar to European style 'Christian democracy' then, if I understand that philosophy correctly. Whose parties makes up a large part of the European EPP, another reason why it's quite strange that the UK doesn't have a popular party that matches it, if it's popular in so many other countries, what has gone differently here? You might guess the Tories should have that niche, but they've lurched further right than they should have and certainly don't have an economic-left policy.


I'd only be speculating, but I imagine that having a constitutional monarch that is also the head of the established church, as well as a first-past-the-post system that didn't allow for a Christian democratic party to break through in the same way as other European countries post-WWII might have played a part.

There was an article on CapX yesterday which revealed that it is the economically leftist, socially conservative are the group that https://capx.co/the-real-centre-of-british-politics-may-not-be-where-you-think/ by the current parties, so there is a gap for such a party to break through. The closest party with any real chance of delivering on it at the moment are, quite pertinently enough, the SDP, or at least its current incarnation of it. I've been following their progress with great interest over the last few months since they gained an MEP, and I've seen quite a few people that I follow on Twitter joining the party recently. They revealed their https://sdp.org.uk/policies/ a few days ago, and I'll happily admit that there is a great deal of it that I would agree with. The only sticky wicket however is that they are firmly pro-Brexit: their MEP defected from Ukip, and some of their new membership has come from that party (although quite a few of the party that I follow that joined came from the "blue" wing of Labour, including quite a few that voted Remain). I doubt they're going to make any real gains any time soon, but as far as ecolsocir parties go, they're perhaps the only real prospect around.

Posted by: vidcapper Feb 27 2019, 06:22 AM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 26 2019, 08:24 PM) *
There was an article on CapX yesterday which revealed that it is the economically leftist, socially conservative are the group that https://capx.co/the-real-centre-of-british-politics-may-not-be-where-you-think/ by the current parties


That is the closest to my position.

QUOTE
, so there is a gap for such a party to break through. The closest party with any real chance of delivering on it at the moment are, quite pertinently enough, the SDP, or at least its current incarnation of it. I've been following their progress with great interest over the last few months since they gained an MEP, and I've seen quite a few people that I follow on Twitter joining the party recently. They revealed their https://sdp.org.uk/policies/ a few days ago, and I'll happily admit that there is a great deal of it that I would agree with.
The only sticky wicket however is that they are firmly pro-Brexit: their MEP defected from Ukip, and some of their new membership has come from that party (although quite a few of the party that I follow that joined came from the "blue" wing of Labour, including quite a few that voted Remain). I doubt they're going to make any real gains any time soon, but as far as ecolsocir parties go, they're perhaps the only real prospect around.


Pro=Brexit wouldn't be a problem for me, of course. wink.gif

Posted by: Brett-Butler Mar 5 2019, 07:52 PM

The Tiggers are in talks to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47453810. I imagine that if/when the party becomes official, they won't be known as The Independent Group, as I think the Electoral Commission may judge it slightly misleading due to "independent" appearing on the ballot paper for any candidate who doesn't run with a party.

Posted by: Klaus Mar 5 2019, 07:58 PM

I guess this is all part of the initial plan to keep their names out there for as long as possible. The intention has clearly always been to form a party but delaying making this official keeps up the publicity.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 29 2019, 12:24 PM



ChUK-a ChUK-a vision, Ch-Ch-Ch-ChUK-a vision.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Mar 29 2019, 12:32 PM

It’s been pointed out the somewhat negative connotations of its abbreviated name ‘CUK’, when it is said out loud. Boy, I am not looking forward to the BBC explainer on what one of those is.

THIS IS WHY YOU RESEARCH THESE THINGS PEOPLE.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Mar 29 2019, 12:41 PM

C*UK-UP

(That's a Change UK and Ulster Unionist Party coalition obvs)

Posted by: Popchartfreak Mar 29 2019, 01:13 PM

I prefer to think of it as the first party headed by an astrophysicist - reaching for the stars! tongue.gif

Jeremy Corbyn: 2 grade E A Levels despite living in a Manor House, attending a Prep School, and a Grammar School.

Just saying.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 Mar 29 2019, 06:57 PM

What a dreadfully naff name for a party.

Posted by: coi Mar 29 2019, 06:59 PM



Soubry seems to think their party is Change.org biggrin.gif

Posted by: Liаm Mar 29 2019, 08:33 PM

Change UK legit sounds like one of those really random parties that gets like 150 votes in a handful of constituencies, cannot take them seriously with that name laugh.gif

Posted by: Doctor Blind May 4 2019, 10:41 AM




Posted by: Popchartfreak May 4 2019, 07:53 PM

Moral: it doesn't matter how desperate you are for candidates, members, backing and policies, make sure you have at least SOME minimum decent standards. Jeremy Corbyn could have told them that......

Posted by: Brett-Butler May 7 2019, 05:50 PM

More bad news for Change UK. When they changed their name over on Twitter, they https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1125784762143191040. It was quickly snapped by a Hard Brexiteer, who's already made his mark on the page. As this page is currently the #2 search when you Google "change uk twitter", this is pretty bad stuff.

What silly sausages.

Posted by: Suedehead2 May 7 2019, 06:12 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ May 7 2019, 06:50 PM) *
More bad news for Change UK. When they changed their name over on Twitter, they https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1125784762143191040. It was quickly snapped by a Hard Brexiteer, who's already made his mark on the page. As this page is currently the #2 search when you Google "change uk twitter", this is pretty bad stuff.

What silly sausages.


Oh dear. It's only a few weeks since the Farage Fanclub failed to acquire various obvious domain names. You'd have thought the Chukas might have learned from that. Their ineptitude seems to know no bounds.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 4 2019, 03:08 PM

Six of the ChUKa's eleven MPs have left the "party". Heidi Allen (the interim leader). Chukka Umuna, Sarah Wollaston, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger and Gavin Shuker have not applied to join the Lib Dems but it is surely only a matter of time.

RIP Change UK, 2019 - 2019.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 4 2019, 04:52 PM

Maybe they needed a ... change ?

QUOTE(BotchLikeThis @ Feb 18 2019, 08:07 PM) *
I've signed up to support them and ready to be selected as a candidate in the June election x


This post has aged well.

Posted by: TheSnake Jun 4 2019, 05:00 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 4 2019, 04:08 PM) *
Six of the ChUKa's eleven MPs have left the "party". Heidi Allen (the interim leader). Chukka Umuna, Sarah Wollaston, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger and Gavin Shuker have not applied to join the Lib Dems but it is surely only a matter of time.

RIP Change UK, 2019 - 2019.


Wow, I thought NI21 was the shortest lived political party in the UK but ChangeUK looks likely to beat that record!

Posted by: Bré Jun 4 2019, 05:05 PM

Lol.

Posted by: Klaus Jun 4 2019, 05:56 PM

Not that it makes a massive difference but well done on those 11 MPs by scoring an own goal against their cause by taking away half a million votes from the other remain-supporting parties

Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 4 2019, 05:58 PM

QUOTE
Wow, I thought NI21 was the shortest lived political party in the UK but ChangeUK looks likely to beat that record!


It's still nowhere near the shortest ever-lived political party, which I believe is Lev, a faction that only existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_(political_party) in the Israeli Parliament on 6th November 2002.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 4 2019, 06:07 PM

QUOTE
Change UK insiders pointed to a longstanding split between Chuka Umunna and Chris Leslie, who have differed on strategy and vied to be the party’s dominant force.

Based on the 6-5 split, it appears Leslie won and Umunna lost.


It appears that some (not all) of the six will be joining the Liberal Democrats.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 4 2019, 06:08 PM

The sad thing about TIG/Change UK is that should have become a bigger thing than they eventually did. Those who left Labour did so for honourable & legitimate reasons, best exemplified by one of the founding members Luciana Berger - that Labour has become a systemically anti-Semitic party who sidelined anyone who didn't fall in behind Jeremy Corbyn, and that there needed to be a new way of doing politics away from the two-party system. Of the many things that stopped them, first was Luciana Berger not being able to take a more leading role in the new movement having had a baby, second was that the wave of expected defections from Labour didn't materialise after Tom Watson brought in changes to placate the less-happy Labour MPs, and finally making their stall a firmly anti-Brexit one, when there were at least two other options with better infrastructure behind them that Remainers could happily give their vote to. Oh, and the fact that their marketing & persuasion skills were ruddy awful from the get-go.

Will be interesting to see if any of the CHUK will be picked up by any other political parties. I can't see too many of them that the Lib Dems/Greens/others would be keen to get on board, Chuka Umunna aside.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 4 2019, 06:20 PM

It was a complete mess from start to finish, and the motives of most were as far as I'm concerned not in any way honourable.

They all just disagreed with who is leader of the Labour Party and threw their collective toys out of the pram.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Jun 4 2019, 06:28 PM

In other "me being wrong about everything" news:

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Feb 8 2019, 07:33 PM) *
Nigel Farage has officially launched his new political party, the https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/08/thousands-tory-party-members-defect-nigel-farages-brexit-party/. Despite his rhetoric about getting thousands of defectors from the Tory ranks, I don't think it is going to amount to much.


Posted by: Rooney Jun 4 2019, 07:56 PM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 4 2019, 07:20 PM) *
It was a complete mess from start to finish, and the motives of most were as far as I'm concerned not in any way honourable.

They all just disagreed with who is leader of the Labour Party and threw their collective toys out of the pram.


In hindsight it was a mess, it's obvious that they must have all majorly disagreed on points. At least this now probably ends them as a party. If some of them do apply to be part of the Liberal Democrats, then that could be really interesting.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 4 2019, 08:15 PM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 4 2019, 07:20 PM) *
It was a complete mess from start to finish, and the motives of most were as far as I'm concerned not in any way honourable.

They all just disagreed with who is leader of the Labour Party and threw their collective toys out of the pram.


Disagreed with Leader of the Labour Party doing nothing and ignoring vital issues. Not quite the same thing. When it comes to throwing toys (or more specifically votes) out the pram, nobody beats J.Corbyn esq for self-harm. At least they buggered off like so many in the party wanted them to, rather than hang around for 30 years like small annoying leeches until they could spread their sunny disposition and talents for the good of the party and the country, and do a bang up marvellous job all round, as JC preferred to do.

Posted by: TheJüpreme Jun 4 2019, 08:17 PM

Not surprising from power-hungry false-faced Soubry. Wouldn't surprise me for this to be her game plan all along. She's clearly been angling for a media career for a long time.

I would like Soubry a lot if she actually ever stood by a jot of what she says, but everything she says and her whole image is optics. Her voting record is the reverse. To me that's even worse than just being honestly self-centered.

As for Luciana Berger, what a disgrace to false flag actual AS because she didn't like her party leader. If I was a Jewish person I would be ashamed of her. The entire Labour antisemitism scandal is largely media spin. She claims to have received abuse from within Labour... because she received abuse anonymously on twitter and online, with zero proof that any of it came from Labour members. She's aligned that with the fact she was deeply unpopular in her constituency and put it as AS too, rather than being anything to do with her being a rich woman parachuted into the constituency who didn't live there, never attended surgeries or supported the local people, yet still received a princely salary for claiming to do so. But no, it must just be because she was Jewish that people were against her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Rebuttals
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

From the latter, a Jewish publication by the Jewish Policy Research Institute UK:

QUOTE
Looking at the political spectrum of British society, the most antisemitic group consists of those who identify as very right-wing. In this group about 14% hold hard-core antisemitic attitudes and 52% hold at least one attitude, compared again to 3.6% and 30% in the general population. The very left-wing, and, in fact, all political groups located on the left, are no more antisemitic than the general population. This finding may come as a surprise to those who maintain that in today’s political reality, the left is the more serious, or at least, an equally serious source of antisemitism, than the right.
(p66)


Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 4 2019, 09:06 PM

QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 4 2019, 09:15 PM) *
Disagreed with Leader of the Labour Party doing nothing and ignoring vital issues. Not quite the same thing. When it comes to throwing toys (or more specifically votes) out the pram, nobody beats J.Corbyn esq for self-harm. At least they buggered off like so many in the party wanted them to, rather than hang around for 30 years like small annoying leeches until they could spread their sunny disposition and talents for the good of the party and the country, and do a bang up marvellous job all round, as JC preferred to do.


I'm no fan of Corbyn, but any MP with any ounce of integrity, or as has been opined in this thread "honourable intensions", would have resigned their seat and stood for re-election under a new party.

Even Zac Goldsmith did that and he's a complete [expletive].

The hypocrisy of leaving a party which in 2017 had effectively given all of those MPs an even stronger mandate but then refused to put their argument to the people is deafening, ESPECIALLY when you are campaigning for another bloody public vote.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Jun 4 2019, 09:11 PM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 4 2019, 10:06 PM) *
I'm no fan of Corbyn, but any MP with any ounce of integrity, or as has been opined in this thread "honourable intensions", would have resigned their seat and stood for re-election under a new party.

Even Zac Goldsmith did that and he's a complete [expletive].

Goldsmith resigned his seat over a specific issue (Heathrow expansion) having said he would do so. After losing the byelection, he soon grovelled his way back into the Tory party and regained the seat by 45 votes. He has ignored the fact that over 70% of voters in his seat voted Remain.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Jun 4 2019, 09:13 PM

He also ran a disgusting "campaign" for London mayor in 2016 which he thankfully lost, don't worry, I know the guy is a ... well, Tory.

Posted by: Steve201 Jun 4 2019, 11:51 PM

QUOTE(TheJüpreme @ Jun 4 2019, 09:17 PM) *
Not surprising from power-hungry false-faced Soubry. Wouldn't surprise me for this to be her game plan all along. She's clearly been angling for a media career for a long time.

I would like Soubry a lot if she actually ever stood by a jot of what she says, but everything she says and her whole image is optics. Her voting record is the reverse. To me that's even worse than just being honestly self-centered.

As for Luciana Berger, what a disgrace to false flag actual AS because she didn't like her party leader. If I was a Jewish person I would be ashamed of her. The entire Labour antisemitism scandal is largely media spin. She claims to have received abuse from within Labour... because she received abuse anonymously on twitter and online, with zero proof that any of it came from Labour members. She's aligned that with the fact she was deeply unpopular in her constituency and put it as AS too, rather than being anything to do with her being a rich woman parachuted into the constituency who didn't live there, never attended surgeries or supported the local people, yet still received a princely salary for claiming to do so. But no, it must just be because she was Jewish that people were against her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Rebuttals
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

From the latter, a Jewish publication by the Jewish Policy Research Institute UK:

(p66)


Absolutely!


Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 5 2019, 07:09 AM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jun 4 2019, 10:06 PM) *
I'm no fan of Corbyn, but any MP with any ounce of integrity, or as has been opined in this thread "honourable intensions", would have resigned their seat and stood for re-election under a new party.

Even Zac Goldsmith did that and he's a complete [expletive].

The hypocrisy of leaving a party which in 2017 had effectively given all of those MPs an even stronger mandate but then refused to put their argument to the people is deafening, ESPECIALLY when you are campaigning for another bloody public vote.


Please, Corbyn voted against Labour policies his whole career, but he wasnt hounded out of the party by moderates. Perhaps if he had listened to the membership, and supported another referendum, as per Labour policy, they wouldnt have needed to resign. THEY are the ones supporting party policy, so why should they stand again for something they still support and stand for. It's Corbyn and his cronies who should resign if they cant get behind Labour Party Policy, as voted for democratically by Labour members.

As a union member, like some I speak to who are also Union activists, I see Corbyn as the one who isn't being democratic and tolerant, and strongly encouraging tolerance and welcoming views in principle across the party and across the country at every opportunity. He's a fence-sitting wishy-washy waste of space and the public at large see him as that, even if they want to support some of the Labour Party policies and social aims.

Posted by: Popchartfreak Jun 5 2019, 07:13 AM

QUOTE(TheJüpreme @ Jun 4 2019, 09:17 PM) *
Not surprising from power-hungry false-faced Soubry. Wouldn't surprise me for this to be her game plan all along. She's clearly been angling for a media career for a long time.

I would like Soubry a lot if she actually ever stood by a jot of what she says, but everything she says and her whole image is optics. Her voting record is the reverse. To me that's even worse than just being honestly self-centered.

As for Luciana Berger, what a disgrace to false flag actual AS because she didn't like her party leader. If I was a Jewish person I would be ashamed of her. The entire Labour antisemitism scandal is largely media spin. She claims to have received abuse from within Labour... because she received abuse anonymously on twitter and online, with zero proof that any of it came from Labour members. She's aligned that with the fact she was deeply unpopular in her constituency and put it as AS too, rather than being anything to do with her being a rich woman parachuted into the constituency who didn't live there, never attended surgeries or supported the local people, yet still received a princely salary for claiming to do so. But no, it must just be because she was Jewish that people were against her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Rebuttals
https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

From the latter, a Jewish publication by the Jewish Policy Research Institute UK:

(p66)


I'm happy to wait and see what the independent report into Labour Party anti-semitic claims concludes. The far left has traditionally distrusted certain organised sectors. This wasn't a problem 4 years ago when there was a different party leader. Perhaps it isn't now. We could always ask the previous leader for his view on the matter, that could be quite illuminating.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Aug 20 2019, 10:24 AM

Change UK (or whatever they're called this week) support now at 0%- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/change-uk-independent-group-zero-support-poll-soubry-a9064186.html

QUOTE
“I don’t think I’m being over-optimistic. We have five MPs, but literally every vote counts now and we are now very strong, because the five are as one.”


The schadenfreude is strong with this one.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 19 2019, 06:15 PM

The Independent Group For Changing Names have announced that they will be disbanding.

Posted by: Michael Bubré Dec 19 2019, 06:17 PM

What a shame that all zero of their elected representatives will have to find another party...

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 19 2019, 10:03 PM

Well that was well worth dividing the remain supporters more.

They got the change they wanted....

Posted by: Doctor Blind Dec 19 2019, 10:25 PM

Their greatest moment remains voting AGAINST Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal in indicative votes back in April meaning that it lost by 3, and thus Johnson and the inevitable No-Deal Brexit in late 2020. Well done guys.

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 19 2019, 10:36 PM

Why did they do that when the support this policy? Was it because it wasn't full remain which the undemocratically wanted?

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 19 2019, 10:46 PM

QUOTE(ChristmaSteve201 @ Dec 19 2019, 10:36 PM) *
Why did they do that when the support this policy? Was it because it wasn't full remain which the undemocratically wanted?

Wanting something is not undemocratic.

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 19 2019, 10:49 PM

It is if they would have undone the vote of 2016 if tHey gained enough support to take power.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Dec 19 2019, 10:51 PM

It's a shame that they're been wound up. Yes, they were terrible in so many ways, and really did nothing to differentiate themselves from other parties or make themselves exciting to voting, but as someone who wants more parties not less, it would have been nice if they blossomed into something that at the very least tread water for a few years. Although of course as we all know FPTP naturally leads to a 2-party system, so it's not going to happen in the next 5 years at least.

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 19 2019, 10:52 PM

At least Labour were able to get rid of Mike Gapes.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 19 2019, 10:55 PM

QUOTE(ChristmaSteve201 @ Dec 19 2019, 10:49 PM) *
It is if they would have undone the vote of 2016 if tHey gained enough support to take power.

Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country. Sadly, a lot of MPs have chosen to ignore that part of their code of conduct.

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas Dec 19 2019, 10:57 PM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Dec 19 2019, 10:25 PM) *
Their greatest moment remains voting AGAINST Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal in indicative votes back in April meaning that it lost by 3, and thus Johnson and the inevitable No-Deal Brexit in late 2020. Well done guys.



It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 20 2019, 12:56 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 19 2019, 10:55 PM) *
Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country. Sadly, a lot of MPs have chosen to ignore that part of their code of conduct.


That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.

Posted by: Holly and Izzy Dec 20 2019, 01:57 AM

QUOTE(Crazy Chris-tmas @ Dec 19 2019, 10:57 PM) *
It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.


Would they under any circumstances say the opposite? It's bluster.

QUOTE(ChristmaSteve201 @ Dec 20 2019, 12:56 AM) *
That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.


Where 52% of the voters voted for parties backing another referendum... Besides, it's ludicrous to assign a political stance as undemocratic. The worst deceit that's been pulled over the last few years is that losing sides should not have a voice.

That said, because people are now starting to believe the lie of 'undoing democracy' from MPs acting for what they believe is the country's best interests, them not backing the vote is just one of many ways in which they and other opposition MPs screwed up the events of this year.

Posted by: Michael Bubré Dec 20 2019, 02:00 AM

I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'. Otherwise they'd never have held it.

Posted by: Holly and Izzy Dec 20 2019, 02:09 AM

QUOTE(Michael Bubré @ Dec 20 2019, 02:00 AM) *
I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'.


I view the referendum itself as extremely disingenuous and believe it never should have been run. I certainly don't think it should be binding MPs. Though for the future it's a technicality under this government, but any MPs that wish to do so should be able to express a pro-remain stance to represent the remain side, now, according to polls, a larger group than the leave side. In the context of 2019, MPs voting against it were right to do so, they were voting against the 'how', not necessarily the concept, but Johnson & co were able to sell that as a betrayal and they should have been more wary of that.

My feelings towards it are a lot more complicated than 'it was advisory so ignore it'.

Posted by: vidsanta Dec 20 2019, 05:38 AM

QUOTE(Michael Bubré @ Dec 19 2019, 06:17 PM) *
What a shame that all zero of their elected representatives will have to find another party...


tongue.gif

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 19 2019, 10:55 PM) *
Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country.


Nor does it stop the people overriding *that*, and sending them their P45's...

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 20 2019, 07:45 AM

QUOTE(ChristmaSteve201 @ Dec 20 2019, 12:56 AM) *
That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.

It wasn’t. The code of conduct remains the same.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 20 2019, 07:48 AM

QUOTE(Crazy Chris-tmas @ Dec 19 2019, 10:57 PM) *
It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.

Technically, that’s true. However, it is only likely if one side grants the other more or less everything they ask for. There is no chance of the EU or the USA doing that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 20 2019, 07:51 AM

QUOTE(Michael Bubré @ Dec 20 2019, 02:00 AM) *
I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'. Otherwise they'd never have held it.

If it was meant to be binding, there would have been a threshold to be reached and, possibly, explicit provision for a vote on the deal. If there was no such provision, the Leave side would’ve been under more pressure to have something vaguely resembling a plan. There would definitely have been provision for the result being overturned if the winning side broke the law.

Posted by: vidsanta Dec 20 2019, 08:26 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 20 2019, 07:51 AM) *
If it was meant to be binding, there would have been a threshold to be reached and, possibly, explicit provision for a vote on the deal. If there was no such provision, the Leave side would’ve been under more pressure to have something vaguely resembling a plan. There would definitely have been provision for the result being overturned if the winning side broke the law.


And imagine what would have happened if there *had* been a threshold, and Leave had the most votes without meeting it!

Rather like the first Scottish Devolution referendum in 1979, and the SNP has been growing in strength ever since... confused.gif

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas Dec 20 2019, 08:40 AM

Don't think it matters whether it was binding or ot. I'd say most voters thought it was. You never heard either side on TV, at meeting, rallies etc say "by the way, this is not binding so maybe nothing wil happen with the result"

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 20 2019, 08:49 AM

QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 20 2019, 08:26 AM) *
And imagine what would have happened if there *had* been a threshold, and Leave had the most votes without meeting it!

Rather like the first Scottish Devolution referendum in 1979, and the SNP has been growing in strength ever since... confused.gif

Golf clubs and other organisations up and down the country require a threshold to be reached to make even a minor change to their constitution.

Posted by: vidsanta Dec 20 2019, 10:14 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 20 2019, 08:49 AM) *
Golf clubs and other organisations up and down the country require a threshold to be reached to make even a minor change to their constitution.


We *entered* the Common Market without a referendum at all....

Posted by: Brett-Butler Dec 20 2019, 10:59 AM

QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 20 2019, 11:14 AM) *
We *entered* the Common Market without a referendum at all....


It was rubber stamped with a referendum that voted substantially in favour though.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 20 2019, 11:50 AM

QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 20 2019, 10:14 AM) *
We *entered* the Common Market without a referendum at all....

Among other things to have been done without a referendum are giving the vote to women and non-property-owning men, reducing the voting age to 21, joining the UN and NATO, abolishing the separate constituencies for universities and abolishing most of the hereditary peers. That's because we are a parliamentary democracy.

Posted by: vidsanta Dec 20 2019, 03:48 PM

QUOTE(Brett-Butler @ Dec 20 2019, 10:59 AM) *
It was rubber stamped with a referendum that voted substantially in favour though.


To a body far less pervasive than the EU is now...

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 Dec 21 2019, 02:22 AM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 20 2019, 07:51 AM) *
If it was meant to be binding, there would have been a threshold to be reached and, possibly, explicit provision for a vote on the deal. If there was no such provision, the Leave side would’ve been under more pressure to have something vaguely resembling a plan. There would definitely have been provision for the result being overturned if the winning side broke the law.


Doesn't sound like an arguement anyone on the remain side has used including Swinson and the LDs during the campaign.

Posted by: Doctor Blind Nov 1 2020, 10:15 PM

New Political Party KLAXON.



Let's hope it finally splits that stubborn Tory vote! biggrin.gif The OK Boomer Party awaits!

Posted by: Klaus Nov 1 2020, 10:23 PM

ffs can he just GO AWAY

Posted by: Envoirment Nov 1 2020, 11:10 PM

QUOTE(Klaus @ Nov 1 2020, 10:23 PM) *
ffs can he just GO AWAY


As much as I hate him, it would be better he stayed if he is creating a new party. Once a brexit deal is done, any party he creates is likey to funnel away support from the conservatives.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Nov 1 2020, 11:56 PM

QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Nov 1 2020, 11:15 PM) *
New Political Party KLAXON.

Let's hope it finally splits that stubborn Tory vote! biggrin.gif The OK Boomer Party awaits!


Ooh, my favourite political-related klaxon.

It's not a surprise, it was pretty well known that once Brexit happened that Farage would change the Brexit Party into the Reform Party, but I didn't think that coronavirus would feature in his offering. Then again, there is a sizeable minority that is becoming restless under lockdown, and he's got form at taking a minority political position and getting support behind it.

Although the demographic that are most opposed to lockdown are 18-24 year olds (by quite a large margin), a group that are also more likely to be repulsed by Farage, so if there is an anti-lockdown party, it won't be one fronted by Farage.

Posted by: Moriz Oculiz Nov 2 2020, 01:12 AM

There is space for a populist party, indeed, and it's one of the few ways we COULD get old Brexiteers into voting for something positive, but obviously I would rather there not be Farage leading it because of the direction he would twist it.

For electioneering purposes, yes, you do want a right-wing Farage-led thing siphoning votes from the right (even though the effect has only ever been minor in comparison to Labour/Lib Dem overlap), but for actually having a chance at changing the political outlook of England in the future, you want something that can attract people from across the spectrum.

Put it this way, if this new party is racist/far-right, and only puts the Tory vote in danger, then the Tories have to become more racist to stop him, and they will. If it is not racist and puts all parties' votes in danger, then Labour AND the Conservatives have to react and play to their voters, perhaps even for vote reform, which is apparently the aim of this new one.

So in summary, I do actually hope that he can reach a lot of anti-lockdown people with this one under a more unifying banner, though because of his past form, I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by: Andrew. Nov 2 2020, 01:36 AM

If it’s a Lawrence Fox-esque anti woke, reactionary populist party than I can see it taking votes off the Tories, that sentiment is very popular right now sadly. I doubt many of that demographic voted Labour in 2019, maybe in 2017 but it could stop Labour winning votes back in the North and Midlands. Even the Brexit Party got some good vote shares in certain areas last year. But yeah, hurting the Tories is never a bad thing but the further rise of Farage is a very bad thing :’)

Posted by: Doctor Blind Nov 2 2020, 08:04 PM

QUOTE(Moriz Oculiz @ Nov 2 2020, 01:12 AM) *
There is space for a populist party, indeed, and it's one of the few ways we COULD get old Brexiteers into voting for something positive, but obviously I would rather there not be Farage leading it because of the direction he would twist it.

For electioneering purposes, yes, you do want a right-wing Farage-led thing siphoning votes from the right (even though the effect has only ever been minor in comparison to Labour/Lib Dem overlap), but for actually having a chance at changing the political outlook of England in the future, you want something that can attract people from across the spectrum.

Put it this way, if this new party is racist/far-right, and only puts the Tory vote in danger, then the Tories have to become more racist to stop him, and they will. If it is not racist and puts all parties' votes in danger, then Labour AND the Conservatives have to react and play to their voters, perhaps even for vote reform, which is apparently the aim of this new one.

So in summary, I do actually hope that he can reach a lot of anti-lockdown people with this one under a more unifying banner, though because of his past form, I won't be holding my breath.


I agree, Farage has good instincts for picking up on a polarising (but vocal) minority opinion and using a combination of the Tory grassroots and those in former Labour heartlands who feel ignored and using the noise to amplify these views and force the Conservatives into shaping his own preferred policy. He did it with Euroscepticism (a minority view in the UK even until the 2010s), why not this?

Posted by: Quarantilas Nov 2 2020, 08:23 PM

You could hear the collective orgasms of BBC News executives when this was announced. Now they have more reasons to inflict him upon us.

Posted by: Suedehead2 Dec 13 2020, 09:06 AM

Jeremy Corbyn (remember him?) is apparently making some sort of announcement this afternoon. Speculation ranges from a new party to running as an independent candidate for Mayor of London.

Posted by: Iz Rink Dec 13 2020, 09:21 AM

Hmm, I can't see him starting a new party myself, though I could be wrong. His Twitter says he's been working on it since the spring - would have been pretty gutsy to be working to leave Labour immediately after stepping down.

Posted by: Brett-Butler Dec 13 2020, 10:58 AM

I can't see Corbyn setting up a new party - if it wasn't for the fact he had the Labour brand behind him, he would never have been an MP for as long as he has, so a new party would lead to a downward spiral for he chances at remaining an MP. See the election results of former MP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Nellist, who after being expelled from Labour went from winning close to half the votes in his constituency to going down to a few thousand since aligning himself with TUSC. Or more recently, the expelled Labour MP & Corbyn ally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency), who went from nearly 24,000 votes in 2017 to just 600 votes in 2019 whilst running as an independent.

At the very most, I expect a new Corbyn-led pressure group within Labour to be launched, although I can see why Corbyn might be tempted to join his former allies Williamson & Nellist by hopping ship to join TUSC.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 Dec 13 2020, 12:48 PM

He should stay in, it’s always funny how when socialist get expelled there’s little media attention but when right wingers do it’s all over the media and called a purge - shows how biased they are

Posted by: Iz Rink Dec 13 2020, 01:02 PM

Yeah, an official forming of a socialist pressure group (counterpart to whatever the ERG are doing these days) seems the most likely, rally the ones in Parliament who are left and control their output so that there's a bloc that will avoid bad headlines and work with the rest of Labour so long as certain lines aren't crossed. Though that would still have the minor niggle of Corbyn still not having the whip but the idea might be so that they're not as affected by losing the whip in general...

I can only hope that it's something similarly built upon left advocacy AND decent cooperation with the rest of Labour anyway.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 Dec 13 2020, 02:04 PM

Is there not already a socialist campaign group in parliament?

Posted by: Road Salt Mixer Dec 20 2020, 04:37 PM

QUOTE(Christmasteve201 @ Dec 13 2020, 02:04 PM) *
Is there not already a socialist campaign group in parliament?


Maybe there is one informally within Labour, but not formally, and probably not one that currently interacts with and tries to get members from other left wing parties.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 Dec 20 2020, 05:18 PM

There is a SCG in the Labour Party including McDonnell etc!

Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services