British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

Well, she's made great progress - a defeat of only 149 is encouraging, compared to last time (230). It's actually only the fourth-biggest defeat in the last hundred years.

That said, I'm surprised it wasn't a bit closer. So many MPs are saying either "we must stop a No-Deal Brexit at any cost!" or "we must stop a postponement of Brexit at any cost!", it's a little strange to see most of them decide that the cost tonight was too high for either side, despite the clear risk of worse outcomes to come.

I think this is probably because the Remainers think they can win a postponement on Thursday.

[alice]

You have to admire the PM though - nothing seems to be able to stop her, not even a sore throat.

[chris_notts]

You have to admire the PM though - nothing seems to be able to stop her, not even a sore throat.

Admire is a strong word for someone who specialises in massive blunders and doesn't know how to learn from her mistakes or when to stop digging a hole for herself. She's certainly a spectacle, though.

[zompist]

Well, she's made great progress - a defeat of only 149 is encouraging, compared to last time (230).

That's an 81-vote shift in only two months! If this rate continues, she should be able to win in just two more months!

[chris_notts]

Well, she's made great progress - a defeat of only 149 is encouraging, compared to last time (230).

That's an 81-vote shift in only two months! If this rate continues, she should be able to win in just two more months!

Surely in 4 months? Since in 2 months the gap narrowed by 81, it'd be a loss of 68 in two months time, and a win by 13 in 4 months. Unfortunately she probably only wants to ask for a 3 month extension to avoid the EU elections...

[zompist]

That's an 81-vote shift in only two months! If this rate continues, she should be able to win in just two more months!

Surely in 4 months? Since in 2 months the gap narrowed by 81, it'd be a loss of 68 in two months time, and a win by 13 in 4 months. Unfortunately she probably only wants to ask for a 3 month extension to avoid the EU elections...

Today's vote was 242 to 391. If 81 more votes shift, that's 323 to 310.

[zompist]

Ah, got votes and gaps mixed up.

(Also, though that is presumably May's plan, such as it is, I don't actually think the trend will continue at a predictable pace.)

[mèþru]

If no deal happens, what does that mean for Corbyn, the Labour Party as a whole, the Independent Group and the Lib Dems?

[chris_notts]

That's an 81-vote shift in only two months! If this rate continues, she should be able to win in just two more months!

Surely in 4 months? Since in 2 months the gap narrowed by 81, it'd be a loss of 68 in two months time, and a win by 13 in 4 months. Unfortunately she probably only wants to ask for a 3 month extension to avoid the EU elections...

Today's vote was 242 to 391 . If 81 more votes shift, that's 323 to 310.

But 81 votes didn't shift. The margin of loss went from 230 to 149, so half that many MPs switched sides. The results were:

First time: 202 to 432
Second time: 242 to 391

Change: 40 more voted for, 41 fewer voted against. 1 MP less voted in total.

[zompist]

You caught the previous version of the post in about the five minute gap while I was redoing the math.

[Salmoneus]

If no deal happens, what does that mean for Corbyn, the Labour Party as a whole, the Independent Group and the Lib Dems?

For Corbyn/Labour, it would be fantastic news. Brexit is an issue that's bad for them, because it strands them between two horns: as the Opposition, they need to oppose the government, and certainly don't want to lose the moderate cosmopolitans and students and so forth who have swelled their ranks, and who might otherwise flee to the lib dems, the greens, the SNP, or just to apathy; but on the other hand, if they oppose Brexit too strenuously, they lose their core traditional electorate in the northeast and the midlands. It's an issue where they cannot please their electorate as a whole. So once Brexit happens, and it's no longer a live issue, they have much better electoral prospects. Plus, No Deal will probably cause chaos and suffering, which Labour will be able to pin on the Tories. They'll say that May is pathetic and weak, that so-called 'moderate' Tories are either cowards or liars, and that the party has been hijacked by far-right extremists who have dragged the country into ruin. [even though, of course, Labour will have helped them do it - No Deal doesn't happen unless Labour allows it]

For the Tiggers, I suspect it's a disaster. "Anti-semitism" is a nice cover to excuse their defections and sow discord in Labour, their rivals, but fundamentally the party can't survive unless it has an issue that people positively care about. People approve of "don't be racist", but it's not really enough to enthuse people to vote, I don't think - and individual Labour MPs will simply say "I'm not racist and I want to reform the party from within; we all want to end anti-semitism, but the way to do that isn't to hand kingmaking power to the crypto-Tories". Similarly, while some voters probably are on board with "let's be less left-wing than labour, but more left-wing than the tories", it's not a strong electoral platform for a third party. So "we're Labour and clearly anti-Brexit" was their best hope of continued relevance, and taking the issue off the table will be a big blow to them.

Plus, No Deal would damage May, and the following local elections would probably damage her further, strengthening Corbyn. May might well be quickly replaced, and the new leader might well seek early elections. Since the Tiggers have no support in their own constituencies, the party is likely to be wiped out as soon as there's a vote (Umunna might survive? Maybe?), which is why they've all refused to allow by-elections (expecting MPs to be accountable to the will of the people is antisemitic). Their best hope is that the longer they have before an election, the more chance they have of gaining some actual supporters.

[Most of the Tiggers quite Labour essentially because Labour were about to get rid of them. The SDP, by contrast, tended to take at least some of their local party with them, so that some Labour seats became SDP seats, or at least there was a fight over them. The Tigger seats, on the other hand, have electorates divided between "Tories who hate Tiggers because they're Labour" and "Labour who hate Tiggers because they betrayed Labour".]


For Lib Dems: oh, yeah, they exist!

I think it would be good in the long term - everything bad that happens from now on, Lib Dems can say "Labour and the Tories did this by not supporting Europe". Brexit may not continue to be a pressing issue that parties need to take positions on, but the broader cultural issues will remain and may help the Lib Dems. Then again, that assumes the Lib Dems aren't beyond helping. It may also matter how No Deal and its consequences get spun. I think the press will prefer to run with "evil EU vindictively punishes Britain for standing up for democracy - this is why we should never have trusted them!", which will permanently outlaw Lib Dems from some of their traditional heartlands.

[Raphael]

For the Tiggers, I suspect it's a disaster. "Anti-semitism" is a nice cover to excuse their defections and sow discord in Labour,

How sad it must be to be Mighty Salmoneus, He Who Knows and He Who Understands, and to be so indifferent to bigotry that one can't even imagine other people seriously seeing bigotry as a problem.

[alice]

You have to admire the PM though - nothing seems to be able to stop her, not even a sore throat.

Admire is a strong word for someone who specialises in massive blunders and doesn't know how to learn from her mistakes or when to stop digging a hole for herself. She's certainly a spectacle, though.

"Admire" in the sense that you have to admire someone who can stand one-legged on top of a flagpole for 24 hours, or who spends far more time than that making up languages nobody will ever speak. I can't think of a better word offhand though.

Meanwhile, she's safe until the end of the year - even if her entire party (not just the MPs) turns against her, until then she'll still be doggedly travelling over to Strasbourg and Brussels, trying to fulfil her God-given duty to implement the Will of the People...

[KathTheDragon]

I can't think of a better word offhand though.

"Respect" perhaps?

[mèþru]

I'd have imagined that the failure to effectively oppose no deal would weaken Labour and Corbyn's position within Labour. The Conservatives obviously will also be hurt and to a much greater extent. I think that Brexit will stay a top issue for at least a year after it actually finishes, so I don't think any party who is suffering from Brexit being an issue will benefit from no deal for a while.

I'm sure you guys know British politics better though, so if Sal's version sounds more realistic I guess Labour wins.

[Frislander]

For the Tiggers, I suspect it's a disaster. "Anti-semitism" is a nice cover to excuse their defections and sow discord in Labour,

How sad it must be to be Mighty Salmoneus, He Who Knows and He Who Understands, and to be so indifferent to bigotry that one can't even imagine other people seriously seeing bigotry as a problem.

That's not what Sal's getting at here - the scare-quotes aren't meant to signify that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem*. I think by this Sal is trying to get across the idea that as much as TIG talk about wanting to escape anti-semitism, that's not their main motivation.

*I'm not sure is even up for debate at this point - even if it wasn't a major issue when people first started harping on about it it's been flared into one I feel by all the negative coverage of Labour this has generated, because this could be spun by someone who'd swallowed implicitly anti-semitic stereotypes into a proper "International Jewry"-style conspiracy to kill Labour.

[Travis B.]

Another thing to note, which I have commented on before, is that it is awfully easy to try to discredit opposition to the policies of the State of Israel, the actions of the settlers, and like by calling it anti-Semitism when no anti-Semitism is intended.

[Raphael]

Also fairly easy to do the reverse. Say pretty much anything negative about Jews these days, and people will defend it as "criticism of Israel". Even if you didn't actually mention Israel.

[mèþru]

As someone who both defends and criticises Israel (well, criticise the politicians of Israel) a lot, both are very frustrating for me.

[Travis B.]

Also fairly easy to do the reverse. Say pretty much anything negative about Jews these days, and people will defend it as "criticism of Israel". Even if you didn't actually mention Israel.

Well, yes, anti-Semites today are wont to try to associate Israel, explicitly or implicitly, with Jews overall, as a way to try to legitimize their anti-Semitism and discredit Jews. This makes it even harder to express criticism of the State of Israel, because it is easy to be lumped in with genuine anti-Semites who use the State of Israel as an excuse for their bigotry.