Rolling Brexit Links/UK politics in the neo-Weimar era

5live broadcast Farage's response earlier, of course they maintained the famous bbc impartiality by not deriding any right wing demagogues.

just keep it simple, pose the question - can you trust someone who offers firm conclusions based on no evidence

the trick ofc is not that farage is credible really so much as he is persistent and sort of engaging. any opposition has to be similarly relentless. suspect constant media noise is a stronger influence on voters than their own material circumstances

can you trust someone who offers firm conclusions based on no evidence

do the conclusions fit your prejudices? then yes, you can.

who are you speaking for

my ukip-supporting straw man. his name is steve

I think socratic bullying can still be effective with some of people who listen to farage, especially the brexit voters who are more sceptical of him

he's useful as an embodiment of bad thinking, you don't need to put any emotional or moral weight into it, you can just show this ridiculous confirmation bias for what it is, and make people more aware of how it distorts things

can you trust someone who offers firm conclusions based on no evidence

You can do better than that, you can make him President of the United States and the most powerful individual in the world.

the trick ofc is not that farage is credible really so much as he is persistent and sort of engaging. any opposition has to be similarly relentless. suspect constant media noise is a stronger influence on voters than their own material circumstances

This is sort of what I was getting at with the left-wing populism thing upthread - when Nashwan asked 'who is not bad on TV?', the answer is 'Farage'. (Well, he is terrible on TV in all the obvious ways but he's also very good at playing the medium to his advantage). Labour needs to be prepared and able to beat these people at their own game - McDonnell and Abbott are pretty good at this, but Corbyn seems to disappear from mass media for weeks on end at times.

Gove's tenure as Lord Chancellor seems to have gained fairly positive reviews from legal types? afaict he spent most of his time unpicking the more egregiously stupid reforms put in place by Grayling

Call me old-fashioned but I think at least some legal background should be a prerequisite for that job, but Gove wasn't bad in that job. Certainly in comparison to education where he was one of the worst ministers I can remember in to be put in charge of a crucial department. But as Lord Chancellor he was a bulwark against the Home Office being able to do exactly what it wanted so it's no surprise that May put someone fairly weak in the role in his place. But we're back to Machiavelli vs Baldrick again here.

I guess on one hand I have always been more at ease with the idea that lots of politics is, in some sense at least, irrational, but on the other the idea that we've suddenly moved from a rational to post-rational world, and/or that rational arguments now have no chance of swaying anyone is not v compelling to me

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38383216

She added: "It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever."

i hear dogs barking off in the distance

A Country That Everyone Works For

how can you make a referendum where half the people vote one thing and the other half another thing to a vote "to change the way the country works forever"? that does not sound as if that woman cares about democracy.

People! Vote Yes! (We'll fill in the question later)

look it's the distortion, stupid! she doesn't want to do it but she has no choice

no, the british people had no choice. they never voted may. she should hold new elections asap.

what don't you understand about she has no choice

of course she has a choice. she can resign. she does not have to do what she does.

finally some fresh insight

no, the british people had no choice. they never voted may. she should hold new elections asap.

― it's the distortion, stupid! (alex in mainhattan), Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:55 AM (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a) britain is a parliamentary democracy, we don't vote for our pm

b) may would win a snap election, possibly (probably tbh) increasing tory representation in parliament

how can you make a referendum where half the people vote one thing and the other half another thing to a vote "to change the way the country works forever"? that does not sound as if that woman cares about democracy.

Also worth remembering that she was in favour of staying in the EU. Supposedly.

But would people still vote for brexit today? If there would be an election the parties could position themselves if they want to go on with brexit or if they are against or if they want to have a new referendum. And if the tories would win, so what? That would give the government a stronger legitimation, something which can't be so bad, no? From outside the UK really looks like a big mess right now, i know the eu does not look healthy at the moment but do british people really think isolationism is a path leading to a bright feature? I understand that you are allergic to advice from outside but the thing is i really do not get how such a civilised country which i love btw can trap itself into such a catch-22.

If there would be an election the parties could position themselves if they want to go on with brexit or if they are against or if they want to have a new referendum.

The Lib Dems might but nobody else would.

So, forget that idea.

Election can't be called without either a vote in Parliament with 2/3 support or the majority party declaring a vote of no confidence in itself. It says here.

The Tories should've been forced to have a proper leadership election though. If no-one else stands against May they can vote SOMEONE ELSE until there is someone else.

You have a funny system there. For a simple mundane election you need a 2/3 support in parliament but for leaving the eu you just need 50.0001% of votes. Am i the only one who finds that a little disproportionate?

Blame David Cameron for both of those.

david cameron didn't want to do them but he had to

tbh im in favor of the fixed-term parliaments act

I'm probably not because it only encourages more PMs who don't even have to contest for it within their own party. But May making it to 2020 unchallenged would be something.

I like the spectre of a tactical snap election. Dramatic.

Alex everyone here thinks this stuff is stupid but I can think of a couple of countries in Europe who would vote to leave the EU if given the chance.

rumours that Jamie Reed will resign this afternoon?

https://twitter.com/BBC_Cumbria/status/811559918914457600

Becuase he actually put 'Red Leader, Rebel Alliance' in his Twitter bio.

confirmed apparently. good riddance: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/21/corbyn-critic-jamie-reed-quits-labour-mp-byelection-copeland?CMP=share_btn_tw

if they could all resign themselves away this would make Momentum's job a lot easier

Jamie Reed, the MP for Copeland in west Cumbria since 2005, told the Guardian he was resigning because he believed he could achieve more for his community in his new job, working for the nuclear processing site Sellafield

nice

Hopefully at the reactor core.

tbf he probably would be achieving just as much for his community doing anything other than being a PLP drone.

Hopefully someone will be selected who isn't the type to quit for a corporate job.

was looking to see if Copeland CLP endorsed Corbyn or Smith in the leadership election, but they didn't declare either way.

This is set up for Ed Balls to return, surely?

three months ago: https://twitter.com/jreedmp/status/779632809854038016

Oh god I forgot the Balls conspiracy

Balls will be on the lookout for a safe seat with strong connections to the ballroom dancing industry.

If Labour lose this by-election there's going to be a fucking meltdown.

So there's going to be a fucking meltdown then.

in retrospect, Labour agreeing not to stand in Richmond might have worked out well for them in short term at least, if it had meant that the Lib Dems would step aside for this by-election?

these are results from the last election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

a situation where a significant number of people who voted Labour in 2015 but who also voted Remain in the referendum switch to the Lib Dems and allow the tories to take the seat seems feasible? I guess a lot depends on how well UKIP do, and if they take more votes from Lab or the Conservatives?

Copeland vote in the EU ref:

Remain 14,419
Leave: 23,528

I wonder what % of ppl who voted Labour in 2015 also voted Remain in 2016?