Zompist Bboard Again

The funny name, and of course Ed Balls Day*, do help. Mostly, though, it's because he went on a celebrity dancing show and was very bad at it, in a way that endeared him to people. He's since gone on to do other fluffy celeb stuff, and people now seem to agree he's a decent chap. It helps, of course, that his political affiliations are ambiguous - he was on the left of the blair/brown government so Labour can like him, but he's obviously right of corbyn so he can't be all bad for tories.

And of course, 20% isn't that great for a celeb, just a lot for a (former) politician.


*Ed Balls.

If you're wondering how people are reacting to the ongoing talks between Corbyn and May.... the Telegraph (a.k.a. the 'Torygraph'), an influential broadsheet strongly associated with intellectual Conservativism, has now said that May has gone from "incompetent" to "dangerous", and is outraged that cabinet is tolerating this "travesty". It's warned that donors are ceasing to donate, and activists are going on strike, and the party might be wiped out in the european elections, if they happen.

"the national interest" is not a popular concept for Conservatives.

Meanwhile, multiple papers are reporting that Boris may be the new leader... as the figurehead for Remain. Yes, yes, he was previously the figurehead for Leave, but he doesn't really mind what he's the figurehead for as long as he's leading the way.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:13 pm
Since universal and women's suffrage, the Tories have won the support of the majority of the voters exactly once - Baldwin in 1931, when Labour had led the country into the great depression and Labour had split in two and the Liberals had split in three.

And Baldwin didn't actually become PM then either, which is one of those things that seems inexplicable in hindsight.

Indeed. He won 470 seats, his closest rival (Arthur Henderson) won 52 seats, so naturally the man made PM was Ramsay MacDonald, whose party held 13 seats, having won 1.5% of the vote.

It's explicable, but one of those freakish things that happens when a coalition government hits a westminster system. MacDonald, as PM, effectively lead a coalition into the election, but couldn't bring his old party with him, and his new party turned out to be tiny. The Tories ended up with a clear majority by themselves, but having campaigned on the basis of forming a coalition under MacDonald, they evidently didn't feel they could immediately backstab him...


But yeah, bizarre.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:13 pm May's 2017 result, 42% of the electorate, was actually the biggest Tory share of the vote since 1979. [that's not a great triumph for May, but rather a reflection of the collapse of the Lib Dems]

As far as i understand it, the Tories mostly gained from the UKIP while Labour gained from the Lib Dems; there was polarisation towards the two main parties around te Brexit issue. i would have thought that the polarisation would have coalesced around the parties with the clearer and more clearcut stance on the issue: LibDems and the UKIP primarily.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:27 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:13 pm May's 2017 result, 42% of the electorate, was actually the biggest Tory share of the vote since 1979. [that's not a great triumph for May, but rather a reflection of the collapse of the Lib Dems]

As far as i understand it, the Tories mostly gained from the UKIP while Labour gained from the Lib Dems;

In terms of the 2017 election campaign, yes - UKIP's vote collapsed and its voters went back to their 'real' parties. However, since UKIP's rise (as a party seriously hoping to gain seats in Westminster) was only slightly slower than its fall, it doesn't explain much on the larger scale. In terms of why the votes of the big two parties were both lower during the 1983-2010 era, and why they've now returned to higher levels, the Lib Dems are the biggest factor.

[so, Cameron getting 36% in 2010 was 'better' than May getting 42% in 2017 - because in 2010 the LDs got 23% of the vote, in 2017 they got only 7%.]

there was polarisation towards the two main parties around te Brexit issue. i would have thought that the polarisation would have coalesced around the parties with the clearer and more clearcut stance on the issue: LibDems and the UKIP primarily.

Yes, back in 2017 I was suggesting the referendum might herald a realignment - and it still might, only it'll need to realign the existing big two, rather than supplanting them (assuming neither of them explodes under the tension of realignment - and explosions are certainly still possible). This was always the more likely outcome... but I'm surprised by how rapid and total it's been.

Underlyingly of course what we're seeing is just "you can't beat duverger's law" - our electoral system can't support more than two major political parties for long enough for a third party to overtake one of the top two.

In terms of how it's been working out, and so quickly, I think the media might be a lot to blame. They have the idea that Brexit Is Serious, and that therefore frivolous 'protest' parties should be ignored. I remember when every political discussion used to have at the least a Tory, a Labour person and a Lib Dem (even if the latter didn't get equal respect), and sometimes UKIP or someone else would join them. Now it seems like most debates are between the government, the ERG, and a token Labour person if they've been able to find someone to send. Which isn't unreasonable - when the future of the nation is at stake, who wants to hear from some Lib Dem spokesperson they've never heard of, whose views will never have the slightest impact on any actual decision making? - but is also unfortunate, because it means the Lib Dems (and Greens, etc) find it very difficult to get their message heard, which means they can't improve their situation.

Meanwhile: the PM is still negotiating with Labour. She's reportedly telling Labour what someone suggested earlier in this thread: that she'll backstab the brexiteers (if they're stupid enough to back her), and use the emergency backstop to create a permanent customs union by default.

She's also negotiating with the brexiteers. She's reportedly telling the brexiteers what she's been saying all along: that she'll backstab Labour (if they're stupid enough to back her), and commit to avoiding a permanent customs union at all costs.

Oddly, both sides have intimated they they don't entirely trust her on this issue.

Both sides have also pointed out that she's out the door the moment the deal gets done, so it doesn't matter what she promises, it'll be her successo who has to deliver it. Brexiteers aren't certain they'll control the party, so worry that her successor will backstab them and use the emergency backstop to create a permanent customs union; Labour aren't certain the brexiteers won't control the party, so worry that her successor will backstab them and fail to use the emergency backstop to create a pemanent customs union.

Meanwhile, the PM is also negotiating with Macron and Merkel. She's telling them that she only wants Brexit extended into June, because it's just a matter of putting another meaningful vote to parliament (sure to be passed) and then it's plain sailing. They think she actually needs an extension until at least the end of the year, because an extension to june will accomplish nothing. They think, apparently, that she's intentionally lying to them (because nobody could be that stupid) and that she desparately wants a longer extension but can't admit it.

Rumour has it she is in fact telling Labour and Remainers that she's attempting to manipulate the French and Germans into giving her a longer extension, in order to put one over on the brexiteers (by getting what she wants without having to publically ask for it).

Rumour also has it she is also telling the brexiteers that the French and Germans are forcing her to take a longer extension even though she desparately doesn't want one and no of course she's not trying to put one over on them why would they think that.

Oddly, all sides have intimated that they don't entirely trust her on this issue.


It's kind of like bluffing in poker, when you've already revealed all your cards.

There's also the larger picture. The Brexiteers fear that after Brexit the EU will force the UK into a customs union in the trade negotiations; doubtless Labour wouldn't trust the EU to do so.

The EU27 also fear that until Brexit actually happens, the UK might behave as though it weren't about to leave the EU.

Less than two days until Britain goes full-on Mad Max...

Or, as we call it here, "less than one and a half days before the government starts doing some serious no deal contingency planning".

So here's my Brexit flowchart:
1) long delay of no-deal Brexit deadline followed by general election
2a) new government committed to Brexit, return to step 1 and repeat as many time as necessary
2b) new government immediately cancels Brexit
3) crisis averted; everyone promises to google something before they vote for it in future

I can't think of any other way out. Yes, it's anti-democratic to just ignore the referendum, but that doesn't make it any less inevitable. And yes, it would be suicide for the politicians who carry it out and could reinvigorate the far-right, but again, none of that goes away because of good intentions. As soon as David Cameron put an impossible choice on a referendum he made this process unavoidable. The people chose to make 4 equal 5, and now we're wringing our hands over the government's inability to give the people what they asked for. This can go on for years, but if it ends it can only end one way.

A long delay is seriously unlikely. Macron's said that a further delay has to have a purpose, and do you really think May can provide one? No, it's far more likely that we'll simply crash out with no deal on the 12th.

I think a long extension is more likely, myself.

But I don't think it can go on until we cancel Brexit. It could, in that the EU could do that, but they won't, and we can't make them. The problem is, the cost to them of an indefinite period of uncertainty is greater than the cost to them of Brexit - they'd like it worked out (ideally no deal, or else customs union, or else at least a managed deal and backstop), but if that won't happen then they'd like to get it over with sooner than later.

I think they'll give us one more chance (the previous one being barely a statistical error). I don't think they'll give us another after that.

Will they force a specific concession from May (i.e. an election)? I doubt it, but maybe.

Update: yes, we have an extension. Hooray!

EDIT: yes, they heard my words, and the BBC announced within seconds of my post that a deal had been agreed.

Except now they're saying it hasn't been.

The 'deal' is an extension until the end of October, which the EU will be able to 'review' in June. No quid pro quo mentioned. Reuters are reporting it quoting 'diplomatic sources', but the BBC caution that the deal has not formally been agreed yet. However, if Reuters are running with it, it sounds like there's a deal been agreed in principle, even if they haven't signed the documents yet.

Come on guys, we've got more than a day to go before the deadline, why so prompt!?



Anyway, 'reviewed in June' probably means "we've told May she can have the time to have an election and/or referendum, but we're going to check up on her in June and if she hasn't been doing her homework we'll stop letting her waste our time."

Remarkable. Presumably there'll be one more attempt to push May's deal through, then there'll be an election should it fail.

I don't think anyone involved is going to let No Deal happen. You know it's illegal to blockade a civilian population during peace time, right? Britain is dependent on the continent for things like food and medicine. As long as the government asks politely to not be subjected to Armageddon, the EU will comply (unless you think the EU has more compassion for Malians and Syrians than it does for affluent (mostly) white people). All this talk about "I read that [European leader X/Y/Z] is against an extension" needs to be taken for what it is: negotiation. You always want to start off by low-balling your opponent. In what world would Macron say that May could have whatever she wanted, even if he was willing to give it to her? The man's not stupid. And as for the quid-pro-quo, I think the EU is assuming they don't have to have a specific promise of an election because they assume that if they extend until the fall May's position will require an election by the summer anyway. They's definitely banking on an election happening sometime this summer, hence the timing of the "review."

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:58 am You know it's illegal to blockade a civilian population during peace time, right? Britain is dependent on the continent for things like food and medicine.

The EU wouldn't be banning their export to the UK. The problems would be British customs slowing their import (or conceivably banning them) and returning transport being caught in the queue to pass EU customs. Their may also be problems with drivers' and vehicles' documentation. A change of drivers at the Channel might be necessary (and I think also at the Irish border).

The point that needs to be reiterated there is that the British import system is already on the verge of collapse. Our ports are unable to pass through imports and exports quickly enough as it is, and as a result there are regularly long delays on roads to the ports, particularly to and from Dover. Periodically, the regular long delays become near-apocalyptic logjams; the government operates something called "Operation Stack", which turns the entire motorway to Dover into an official lorry park (massively disrupting normal travel through the county). This has been an issue since the 80s, but has become far more pressing since the mid-2000s. Particularly large disruptions have cost the country up to a quarter-of-a-billion pounds for a week or two or traffic.

The concern is that the further disruption of customs checks will cause this to become permanent, not occasional. The calculation apparently is that an extra 30 seconds transit time through the port per vehicle equates to day-long traffic jams on the roads. This becomes a problem because certain medications in particular need to be delivered swiftly, and either cannot be stockpiled or cannot feasibly be stockpiled to a sufficient extent to endure a permanent disruption. Similarly, levels of food spoilage may soar.

I don't think this will result in Mad Max, particularly with this new extension. But it will result in serious problems [one reason ministers don't want No Deal? They've been told their work hours will have to increase to 22.5 hours a day...]. And these will be exacerbated by the expected plummeting of the pound.

Time for a naive question... on a practical level, why would No Deal hold up imports? Countries usually don't check exports, do they? So the EU doesn't need to hold up exports on their end. And the UK could simply (haha, 'simply') declare that imports from the EU don't need any special checks for some period of time. What would the mere fact of Brexit do to slow down the customs process?

I do understand that UK exports could be immediately affected. All of a sudden UK exports are no longer from the EU, but from a foreign WTO country. So different rules suddenly apply in Calais and Rotterdam... and the Irish border. And because supply pipelines have been built for forty years based on free movement, this causes lots of problems. But I'm only asking about the EU-to-UK part of this system.

Couldn't the UK be targeted by terrorists (Muslim, Christian, FSB, etc.) based out of EU countries if they don't run checks on imports?
Even if not, then Brexiteers could still run that line anyway to force the government to do it. After all, no control of imports is a sign of lack of sovereignty! (looks at Vatican and Andorra)