Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Samson]

I'm pretty sure Hellbound is doing the converse of me with the Trump threads. Morbidly wondering which will do more damage to our respective countries. I was saying to a Kiwi on Sunday, that I think New Zealand is the largest anglophone country to not be going politically insane (Canada seems to have a rather messy corruption issue at the moment).

New Zealand is politically insane.
We declare we are going carbon neutral while increasing population at the fastest rate in the world, while also having the most absolutely secure borders in the world, and zero ability for refugees to arrive.
Jacinda Ardern is a disaster and a bare faced liar. Good luck with BJ.

 

[McHrozni]

Of all he options, the best one got eliminated. (Apparently too much brain to be leader of Tories)

That's arguable. While it's true Rory Stewart was the only of the bunch speaking the truth on Brexit, I'm not sure that's what UK needs right now. The very best turn of events would be for BJ to win the Poisoned chalice of PM and drink deep. Have him try to bluff the EU one last time and then be faced with a prospect of no deal, amidst stark reminder it will be the end of UK, Tory party and, most importantly, his career. If the result of his premiership is BJ begging for an extension, promising everything to Brussels to obtain one the very idea of Brexit has been defeated. This is what UK needs right now, undeniable evidence Brexit has always been a lie, shown to all in a manner impossible to ignore. BJ begging for another extension is that evidence.

Of course there is risk of what the Don described: a snap election, a healthy Tory majority and a no deal Brexit. But this is easier said than done. The postal vote results for the new Tory leader are supposed to be announced on July 22nd. That's two days after the start of the summer recess of Parliament, which only returns on September 5th, when BJ can officialy take his mantle.

That's less two months from the deadline. It's also the amount of time the snap election needs if he calls one as his first act as PM and doesn't even try to bluff the EU first. The 2017 snap election took two months and three days from announcement to Parliament being seated again (there was a two-day delay from the plan). BJ has eight days fewer and only if he calls a snap election on his first day as PM - and the first act of the new seating of Parliament would have to deal with no-deal Brexit crisis somehow. BJ plans to reopen negotiations with EU first, but he can't do that if he's the head of a caretaker government while elections are due. If he tries to bluff the EU and then call snap elections no-deal Brexit may hit in the midtst of an election campaign. That's ... not ideal, to put it mildly.

I'll argue right here, right now, that BJ is the best option of the bunch. BJ bending the knee in Brussels, begging for mercy is what kills Brexit. I may be wrong - but I may also be right.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

It's not clear to me why a no-deal Brexit would necessarily damage Boris politically.

For starters it would make him absolutely secure in the party - 70% of members want no deal and if that YouGov poll is anything like accurate they consider the break up of the UK a price well worth paying.

Leaving with a no-deal would absolutely spike the Brexit Party and UKIPs guns and so the Leave voters who have been supporting those parties as a means of prompting the Conservatives to implement Brexit will return to the fold.

Meanwhile the Labour Party is in disarray with a leader who still seems to be pro-Brexit and very reluctant to change his mind. Nothing new there, he's been advocating the same policies on everything since the 1970s despite the world changing significantly in the meantime and recent reports on the BBC had him listening carefully to 25 MPs who were warning him not to consider Remain as a referendum option and ignore the 100+ who are asking for a second referendum. I couldn't vote for Labour in an upcoming General Election unless they change both their leader and their Brexit policy. Even if Labour changes leader, they need someone with a similar level of "brand awareness" as Boris and not some capable but boring nonentity.

The Remain alternatives, LibDem or Green, don't have the kind of regional support to deliver large number of seats even if they get a significant proportion of the vote.

Whenever the next election happens, I can see the Conservatives getting 30% to 35% of the vote due to a combination of party loyalists and people who have heard of Boris. Even with Corbyn at the helm, Labour will get 20% to 25% which leaves around 40% - 45% being split between the nationalist parties (who should expect to triumph), LibDems and Greens.

With a split like that, and the vagaries of the first past the post system, if the Conservatives managed 35%, they could easily get a majority of 100+. If the election takes place amid post no-deal Brexit turmoil, I could see the Conservative share of the vote being significantly higher because people will be frightened to hand over control of the country to Corbyn.

 

[McHrozni]

It's not clear to me why a no-deal Brexit would necessarily damage Boris politically.

For starters it would make him absolutely secure in the party - 70% of members want no deal and if that YouGov poll is anything like accurate they consider the break up of the UK a price well worth paying.

Supporting it in a poll and supporting it after you had to sell you kids for medical experiments because your plant closed down are you're destitute are two quite different things. Sure, Blitz spirit and all that will ensure there is no revolution in the UK. But promising unicorns and delivering untamed nightmares* isn't the recepie for a long, healthy political career either.

Furthermore the poll we all know and love asked Tory party members. There are only about 130 thousand of those, out of 46 million eligeble voters in the UK. The fact a clear majority of 130 thousand is of the opinion breaking up the UK and their prosperity is a price worth paying for Brexit does not mean a majority of voters is of the same opinion (and not "thinks") the same. I made a point about self-selection earlier, it is probable a statistically significant number of members left the Tories in disgust due to Brexit, skewing the numbers towards "Brexit, come what may". I see no justification to assume Tory party members hold the exact same opinions in the same proportions as their one hundred times larger voter base.

Meanwhile the Labour Party is in disarray with a leader who still seems to be pro-Brexit and very reluctant to change his mind. Nothing new there, he's been advocating the same policies on everything since the 1970s despite the world changing significantly in the meantime and recent reports on the BBC had him listening carefully to 25 MPs who were warning him not to consider Remain as a referendum option and ignore the 100+ who are asking for a second referendum. I couldn't vote for Labour in an upcoming General Election unless they change both their leader and their Brexit policy. Even if Labour changes leader, they need someone with a similar level of "brand awareness" as Boris and not some capable but boring nonentity.

Whenever the next election happens, I can see the Conservatives getting 30% to 35% of the vote due to a combination of party loyalists and people who have heard of Boris. Even with Corbyn at the helm, Labour will get 20% to 25% which leaves around 40% - 45% being split between the nationalist parties (who should expect to triumph), LibDems and Greens.

With a split like that, and the vagaries of the first past the post system, if the Conservatives managed 35%, they could easily get a majority of 100+. If the election takes place amid post no-deal Brexit turmoil, I could see the Conservative share of the vote being significantly higher because people will be frightened to hand over control of the country to Corbyn.

Corbyn is indeed a major part of the problem with Brexit, he always has been. Still, all these arguments about how he's pro-Brexit and refuses to change his mind only work until Brexit happens. If there is a no-deal Brexit he's still the alternative to a Tory no-deal Brexit, with selling off the NHS to US interests being the key boogeyman this time around. Even with your numbers that assume the Tory party base would vote alongside Tory party membership (unjustified, IMHO), if the conservatives are on low end of your estimate and Labour is at the high end a relatively slight shift from LibDem, Green and nationalists to Labour could see the latter be neck-and-neck with Tories at least, perhaps forming a coalition with some to "manage Tory Brexit".

Plus of course - the next election isn't the end of history either. Even if BJ wins he'll be presiding over a mother of all recessions, an evisceration of the remaining British manufacturing, probably losing a few bits of country in the process all the while being rightfully blamed for it all.

Diehard party loyalists would still vote for him, sure. All 15% of the electorate. The rest would either stay at home or vote for someone else. I'm not sure he sees that far or indeed that he cares, but his place in history would be more along the lines of John I than anyone else.

McHrozni

*a dragon-horse with an attitude and a taste for human flesh

 

[Tolls]

If Boris calls a GE, even with his supposed support for No Deal (as with everything else Boris, it is only a cloak of convenience), unless he manages to buy Farage off I don't see him managing to draw more than a few percent back to the Tories.

If the Faragists are a thing in the election then they will bite into the Tory votes.

 

[The Don]

Supporting it in a poll and supporting it after you had to sell you kids for medical experiments because your plant closed down are you're destitute are two quite different things. Sure, Blitz spirit and all that will ensure there is no revolution in the UK. But promising unicorns and delivering untamed nightmares* isn't the recepie for a long, healthy political career either.

Furthermore the poll we all know and love asked Tory party members. There are only about 130 thousand of those, out of 46 million eligeble voters in the UK. The fact a clear majority of 130 thousand is of the opinion breaking up the UK and their prosperity is a price worth paying for Brexit does not mean a majority of voters is of the same opinion (and not "thinks") the same. I made a point about self-selection earlier, it is probable a statistically significant number of members left the Tories in disgust due to Brexit, skewing the numbers towards "Brexit, come what may". I see no justification to assume Tory party members hold the exact same opinions in the same proportions as their one hundred times larger voter base.

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the part about support from within the party for no-deal was to demonstrate that there is no credible internal threat to him in the foreseeable future, the Conservative Party members will continue to back him to the hilt and because they also get to select candidates, MPs will back him too.

That said, a straw poll down the pub (rural, well to do, Wales) of Conservative voters who aren't party members indicates strong support for a no-deal Brexit (for all the usual spurious reasons) and a willingness to blame the EU for any and all negative consequences.

Corbyn is indeed a major part of the problem with Brexit, he always has been. Still, all these arguments about how he's pro-Brexit and refuses to change his mind only work until Brexit happens. If there is a no-deal Brexit he's still the alternative to a Tory no-deal Brexit, with selling off the NHS to US interests being the key boogeyman this time around. If the conservatives are on low end of your estimate and Labour is at the high end a relatively slight shift from LibDem, Green and nationalists to Labour could see the latter be neck-and-neck with Tories at least, perhaps forming a coalition with some to "manage Tory Brexit".

The thing is that, due to the vagaries of the first past the post system, the LibDems could easily poll 30% nationally and end up with 50 or so seats. For sure it's possible to form that coalition but it would be a very fragile one because there isn't enough overlap on domestic policy. They may be able to reach some kind of agreement on Brexit (if Labour is willing to change policy) but on a whole raft of other policies there would be little or no agreement.

Plus of course - the next election isn't the end of history either. Even if BJ wins he'll be presiding over a mother of all recessions, an evisceration of the remaining British manufacturing, probably losing a few bits of country in the process all the while being rightfully blamed for it all.

Diehard party loyalists would still vote for him, sure. All 15% of the electorate. The rest would either stay at home or vote for someone else. I'm not sure he sees that far or indeed that he cares, but his place in history would be more along the lines of John I than anyone else.

McHrozni

*dragon-horse with an attitude and a taste for human flesh

You're right that it wouldn't be the end of history but it would put us 4, 5 or 6 years down the line and with Boris having been Prime Minister and I think you're underestimating the right wing media's ability to deflect blame.

In the event of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. 40% of the UK population will put the blame solidly on the EU (for being beastly and foreign) Remainers (for being anti-Brexit Quislings) and companies that pull out of the UK (for being traitors).

 

[The Don]

If Boris calls a GE, even with his supposed support for No Deal (as with everything else Boris, it is only a cloak of convenience), unless he manages to buy Farage off I don't see him managing to draw more than a few percent back to the Tories.

If the Faragists are a thing in the election then they will bite into the Tory votes.

IMO Tory support for a no-deal Brexit will completely spike the guns of the Brexit Party. Why vote for the Party when their only policy is to secure a no-deal Brexit when the Conservatives are offering the exact same thing ?

I expect the Brexit Party to disappear in the event of a no-deal Brexit in the same way that UKIP disappeared once the Leave vote happened.

 

[McHrozni]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the part about support from within the party for no-deal was to demonstrate that there is no credible internal threat to him in the foreseeable future, the Conservative Party members will continue to back him to the hilt and because they also get to select candidates, MPs will back him too.

That said, a straw poll down the pub (rural, well to do, Wales) of Conservative voters who aren't party members indicates strong support for a no-deal Brexit (for all the usual spurious reasons) and a willingness to blame the EU for any and all negative consequences.

Maybe. I can find no polls that would indicate one way or another, possibly due to inadvertent googlebombing of the Conservative party members poll. The assertion Tory voters would vote for the party in the event of a Tory-headed disasterous no-deal Brexit is unsupported as far as I'm concerned. It's a risk, not the most likely turn of events.

The thing is that, due to the vagaries of the first past the post system, the LibDems could easily poll 30% nationally and end up with 50 or so seats. For sure it's possible to form that coalition but it would be a very fragile one because there isn't enough overlap on domestic policy. They may be able to reach some kind of agreement on Brexit (if Labour is willing to change policy) but on a whole raft of other policies there would be little or no agreement.

At this moment it doesn't matter. Brexit consumed British politics, there needs to be some sort of a resolution. I'm afraid the only resolution that will give any sort of permanence is a Brexit with a deal. It will be a prerequesite for a deal with anyone who isn't Russia or China too. Of course Brexiteers will be unhappy, but they'll be unhappy with just about anything (including a no deal).

You're right that it wouldn't be the end of history but it would put us 4, 5 or 6 years down the line and with Boris having been Prime Minister and I think you're underestimating the right wing media's ability to deflect blame.

No, I don't underestimate that at all. I'm saying a significant majority of the British electorate will see articles saying, paraphrased: "We're the strongest country ever and EU trembles in fear from us. The damage we're suffering is just a result of the EU being nasty to us, bullying poor little UK who deserves better! When they were down we helped them, but now they're mean to us!" and be able to see it's self-contradictory and alter their opinions accordingly.

They will not admit they were fooled. They will instead remember how they always were against no-deal Brexit, because it was a foolish plan nobody voted for in the first place.

In the event of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. 40% of the UK population will put the blame solidly on the EU (for being beastly and foreign) Remainers (for being anti-Brexit Quislings) and companies that pull out of the UK (for being traitors).

And on Scots for not wanting to be a part of it and on Northern Ireland for the crime of being Irish, I take it?

A significant portion of the British electorate is emotionally invested in Brexit and wishes it done, come what may. I mentioned before how far those numbers go once reality starts to bite - ~20% or so, maybe 25%, maybe 15%, but neither lower nor higher than those borders. In the event of a no deal Brexit I expect polls to show 60% of the population to have voted against Brexit in 2016 within two years. Denial is a coping mechanism.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

IMO Tory support for a no-deal Brexit will completely spike the guns of the Brexit Party. Why vote for the Party when their only policy is to secure a no-deal Brexit when the Conservatives are offering the exact same thing ?

I expect the Brexit Party to disappear in the event of a no-deal Brexit in the same way that UKIP disappeared once the Leave vote happened.

Because a No Deal won't happen (IMO) before an election.

 

[Greebo]

And then there were three. Still looking like Boris is going to lead the charge back to the times were sooo much better (mid 1700's)

 

[Lothian]

And then there were three. Still looking like Boris is going to lead the charge back to the times were sooo much better (mid 1700's)

Here is hoping it is Gove. It would be great if it is down to those two and , once again, they make sure the other is unelectable and they both drop out.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why? It's an accurate summary of the debate.

Live: Britain’s Next PM – The Channel 4 Debate
6.30pm, Channel 4
That the UK is bound for hell in a hand-assisted vehicle, there is little doubt. All that remains is to discover which of these escapees from Pandora’s box will taxi us there; a more wretched collection of dissemblers, idiots, narcissists and people who have mistakenly taken drugs is difficult to imagine under one studio roof, but here we are. An asbestos-clad Krishnan Guru-Murthy meets the contenders before an audience drawn from across this broken isle. God actually help us.
Ali Catterall

Why is there a televised debate? I thought the advantage of a parliamentary system was you didn't need to bother with things like this.

 

[The Don]

Johnson, Gove or Hunt.

What a choice to have make. I almost felt sorry for the Conservative members but then I remembered their views on, and enthusiasm for, a no-deal Brexit.

 

[3point14]

And then there were three. Still looking like Boris is going to lead the charge back to the times were sooo much better (mid 1700's)

Boris will save us from the situation he engineered in the first place.

The very people who've ****** the country up are the ones who are now proclaiming that they'll fix.


******* shoot me.

 

[The Don]

Why is there a televised debate? I thought the advantage of a parliamentary system was you didn't need to bother with things like this.

Actually, the question should be "Why were there two televised debates ?"

The answers are:

• General public interest in the candidates, one of whom is very likely to be our next PM
• To inform the 120k Conservative members who will be voting
• Politicians generally like to get their faces on the TV

 

[Darat]

Boris will save us from the situation he engineered in the first place.



The very people who've ****** the country up are the ones who are now proclaiming that they'll fix.





******* shoot me.

What's even more ironic is that he has already had one go at Brexit and found it beyond his capabilities.

 

[Garrison]

Actually, the question should be "Why were there two televised debates ?"

The answers are:

• General public interest in the candidates, one of whom is very likely to be our next PM
• To inform the 120k Conservative members who will be voting
• Politicians generally like to get their faces on the TV

You forgot giving the Daily Mail another reason to complain about the BBC.

 

[The Don]

What's even more ironic is that he has already had one go at Brexit and found it beyond his capabilities.

Ah, but that's before Boris was able to convince the EU that the UK is perfectly prepared to shoot ourselves in the head unless our demands are met

Now that they're convinced of our mettle and will have to face a Boris who has complete freedom across a negotiating table, they're sure to give us everything we could possibly want

 

[BobTheCoward]

Actually, the question should be "Why were there two televised debates ?"

The answers are:

• General public interest in the candidates, one of whom is very likely to be our next PM
• To inform the 120k Conservative members who will be voting
• Politicians generally like to get their faces on the TV

Ugh. Bring back smoke filled rooms.

 

[Lothian]

You forgot giving the Daily Mail another reason to complain about the BBC.

The daily mail never complains when you get right wing extremists spouting off on TV. They will be loving the debates.