Zompist Bboard Again

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:11 pm May doesn't want No Deal; she wants Her Deal. If she can't get that, plan B is Her Deal. This is also plan C.

That is, she's running out the clock; promising a vote in mid-February means she's counting on Her Deal looking better and better as time runs out. That is... unlikely, but she doesn't seem to be considering any alternatives.

That's where the lack of prevention thing comes in. The rumblings are that if no backup plan appears as she runs the clock-down, e.g. no deal passed and no extension sought, her payroll vote may start voting against her on things like article 50 extensions and daring her to sack them. If she doesn't, then discipline evaporates and she has no government. If she does, and replaces them with backbench loyalists, assuming any exist, then she's increasing her stock of rebellious backbenchers with no incentive to support her.

The one thing she could do is cancel Brexit, or ask for a delay. But she's got it into her head that Brexit Must Be Done-- besides, her own party would split if she tried to cancel. As for a delay, that isn't compatible with her strategy of playing chicken with Her Plan.

True. The problem is that her running down the clock strategy isn't increasing support for her deal. It's increasing support for either no deal or delay, depending on who you ask. Within the next two or three weeks, unless there's a big shift and her deal actually passes, May will have to signal what outcome we're heading towards. The trigger is likely to be rebellions by one side or another, e.g. her own ministers voting for an article 50 extension. As soon as she chooses, her government evaporates.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:27 pm

The one thing she could do is cancel Brexit, or ask for a delay. But she's got it into her head that Brexit Must Be Done-- besides, her own party would split if she tried to cancel. As for a delay, that isn't compatible with her strategy of playing chicken with Her Plan.

True. The problem is that her running down the clock strategy isn't increasing support for her deal. It's increasing support for either no deal or delay, depending on who you ask. Within the next two or three weeks, unless there's a big shift and her deal actually passes, May will have to signal what outcome we're heading towards. The trigger is likely to be rebellions by one side or another, e.g. her own ministers voting for an article 50 extension. As soon as she chooses, her government evaporates.

I agree, she's likely to lose the vote. But by your analysis, she has no incentive to do anything else.

But if her government evaporates... what exactly does that mean? She can only be forced out by a parliamentary VONC, but that would require a large defection of Tories. Well, four. Then what? Who forms a government?

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:49 pm I agree, she's likely to lose the vote. But by your analysis, she has no incentive to do anything else.

But if her government evaporates... what exactly does that mean? She can only be forced out by a parliamentary VONC, but that would require a large defection of Tories. Well, four. Then what? Who forms a government?

Well, it probably means complete paralysis instead of the partial dysfunction we have now, a nightmare poorly managed crashout, and the disintegration of the party. I agree May haa no good choices, but if the strategy you're pursuing seems doomed to failure then you don't lose much by trying something else. Trying to win this thing on Tory votes is almost certain to fail. Trying to keep the party together in anything but name has already failed. At this point, she has little to lose trying something else even if it's unlikely to succeed, because even a long shot would be better than what she has at the moment.

Honestly, her strategy might still win.

There's a very strong anti-no-deal lobby. There may well be a majority against both no deal and no brexit. In that case, the options are May's deal or a new deal, but while Parliament can theoretically draw up its own new deal, it's extremely unlikely (given co-ordination and procedural problems within parliament, followed by the difficulty of negotiating with the EU without the support of the head of government) in the time available. No-dealers may, in the end, accept May's deal. Or, if they look like having a majority for extensive delay, brexiteers may back May to avoid no brexit.

Honestly, I don't know what's going to happen.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:47 pm Honestly, her strategy might still win.

There's a very strong anti-no-deal lobby. There may well be a majority against both no deal and no brexit. In that case, the options are May's deal or a new deal, but while Parliament can theoretically draw up its own new deal, it's extremely unlikely (given co-ordination and procedural problems within parliament, followed by the difficulty of negotiating with the EU without the support of the head of government) in the time available. No-dealers may, in the end, accept May's deal. Or, if they look like having a majority for extensive delay, brexiteers may back May to avoid no brexit.

Honestly, I don't know what's going to happen.

One thing she could try if she really wants her deal is to commit to resigning immediately after implementing it and threaten to stay on to deal with the fallout if it's not passed. It's not just about the deal, it's also about May's lack of empathy, charisma, and leadership skills. I can imagine that a few MPs might vote for the deal just to accelerate May's departure without having to trigger an election...

What'll actually happen: Everyone votes for May's deal to get rid of her. Then everyone (except May) votes to repeal the deal because they hate it.

Actually, I think the threat of a leadership election and someone being lumbered with the immediate aftermath of a brexit that they had no control over negotiating would be a good way to block acceptance of her deal. I think it would be more effective to threaten to resign if MPs don't support her!

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:24 am Actually, I think the threat of a leadership election and someone being lumbered with the immediate aftermath of a brexit that they had no control over negotiating would be a good way to block acceptance of her deal. I think it would be more effective to threaten to resign if MPs don't support her!

The Guardian claims that many of the cabinet at least want her gone within 3 months of Brexit day, to avoid her locking in the spending plans of her successor and messing up the next phase of negotiations:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... isters-say

Some of these people are presumably the candidates to succeed her. I suppose it depends whether the less ambitious have the same view or not.

If I were them right now, I'd want to be lying low for longer than that, letting May soak up the toxins. Having said that, certainly from a tactical point of view the ideal date for her resignation would be May 4th...

May 4th?
From a certain point of view...

Day after the local council elections.

Ah that makes sense
I was just trying to turn it into a Star Wars reference.

mèþru wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:04 pm Ah that makes sense
I was just trying to turn it into a Star Wars reference.

Don't worry, the Sun will be all over it.

Yesterday, Corbyn spoke at a rally complaining that the media were hostile because they didn't ask the questions he want them to (uh-huh, you can't tell he's more used to being interviewed as the rogue backbencher than the leader, can you), and used as an example a Sky News interview lasting fourteen minutes where it was apparently twelve minutes before they asked questions about things that affect real people. Most of the questions asked in that time, if you watch, being about anti-Semitism.
I would say accidentally implying you think Jews aren't real people is a novel strategy for dealing with allegations of anti-Semitism, but it's honestly not that different from his leadership so far.

I don't know about in the UK, but in the US it isn't a novel strategy at all.

What do you guys think about Watson's new group?

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:45 am What do you guys think about Watson's new group?

It's not the same without Jezza. Man, that guy could orate.

alice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:58 am

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:45 am What do you guys think about Watson's new group?

It's not the same without Jezza. Man, that guy could orate.

Will it use the 12 steps? Or maybe help them through the 5 stages of grief? I can just imagine them taking it in turns to stand up and share.

It sounds like group therapy for those used to being in the driving seat, who are finding out what life was like for the actual left (you know, what Labour was always supposed to be) for the last couple of decades. Not pointless, but it's not like they haven't already been lobbying the leadership hard.

I think it's astonishing, and very dangerous.

Let's keep reminding ourself: this isn't normal. ["this" encompassing a lot of things about British politics right now]. The Leader controls their Party - by consent, but they do; otherwise they can't really be the Leader. The idea that a Leader would tolerate their own deputy forming a rival leadership and rival policy-advocating structure within a parliamentary party, quite openly, is just... astonishing. Normally it would be absurd. Of course, factions do exist, both personal and ideological. Normally, there would be an unacknowledged clique around a major party figure like Watson. And normally, if there were major policy disagreements, what would happen would be that some ex-MP or donor would set up a "think tank", outside of Parliament, and maybe a couple of MPs would openly attach their name to it, and others would make their allegiance known by making appearances there or citing their studies. But what does NOT normally happen is that a deputy leader openly forms a party within a party.

What the fuck is going to happen if Labour win an election? Will they be in coalition with themselves? Will Watson's ministers answer to Corbyn, or to Watson? Since they openly have different ideologies and policies from the Corbynite party, how will they be able to sit in a Corbynite cabinet? As ministers, whose policies will they implement?

This seems like a major step toward a split. Not only does this form a magnet for discontent, and a crystalised, incipient leadership structure and brand to enable an eventual split - it's much easier for a group of 30 or 40 (or 100?) to leave en masse, as a group, than for individuals to leave the security of the pack one by one - but it also allows Labour MPs, who, unlike most Tories, have a fanatical, identitarian loyalty to at least the name of their party if not to any actual policies, to leave the Labour party while continuing to consider themselves Labour. Watson's people are already threatening - sorry, promising - sorry, warning - that if the leadership acts in a hostile manner to this alien limb of the party in open rebellion against the leadership and the membership, they will be 'provoked' into splitting permanently.

I don't trust Watson, btw. I think he was discredited by the paedophilia panic, and since then has done nothing but try to get on any bandwagon that'll get him airtime, in statements and interviews, while not actually standing up and doing anything about anything one way or another.

And while we're at it, how bizarre that the right wing of the party is now known as the "social democratic tradition". Oh, I get it, because the others are Communists, right...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:43 pm I don't trust Watson, btw. I think he was discredited by the paedophilia panic, and since then has done nothing but try to get on any bandwagon that'll get him airtime, in statements and interviews, while not actually standing up and doing anything about anything one way or another.

And while we're at it, how bizarre that the right wing of the party is now known as the "social democratic tradition". Oh, I get it, because the others are Communists, right...

It's certainly true that Watson is a snake, and a fairly incompetent one at that. The only thing worse than a serial backstabber, is an unsuccessful serial backstabber...

I was somewhat concerned by his promise to personally supervise the antisemitism investigation, given his obvious lack of trustworthiness. Not exactly the person you'd pick to run any kind of quasi-judicial process.