UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Thanatttynia]

Boles apparently 'promised' the SNP that immigration powers would be devolved if his amendment went through, which is why they supported it. Idiotic and self-concerned politicians who can't look past the end of their own noses are going to destroy the union by accident. I would note that every time there is a hint of resistance from the SNP to basically any proposal, the only response any Westminster politicians have is to promise more devolved powers. At some point we are going to run out of powers which can be devolved, and then what?

If every meaningful governmental power is devolved to a sub-national executive and legislature (for some segments of the population, but not others,) wtf is the point of having a national executive or legislature at all?

[Ostroeuropa]

Moving back to, you know, actual politics relevant to today's events....

What an interesting change (not really, obviously). Does anyone think the further indicative votes will see any movement sufficient to tip one of the proposals over to 'yes' -- and beyond that, make it binding on the government in some way? I saw some mention of Cox saying how Parliament could bind the government to the votes in some form. Anyone with more knowledge of the law around to speak on that?

I think we'll probably see a customs union proposal win if it is put to the house again, however, the EU might reject that if it doesn't come with free movement attached.

[Ifreann]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

[Ostroeuropa]

Boles apparently 'promised' the SNP that immigration powers would be devolved if his amendment went through, which is why they supported it. Idiotic and self-concerned politicians who can't look past the end of their own noses are going to destroy the union by accident. I would note that every time there is a hint of resistance from the SNP to basically any proposal, the only response any Westminster politicians have is to promise more devolved powers. At some point we are going to run out of powers which can be devolved, and then what?

If every meaningful governmental power is devolved to a sub-national executive and legislature (for some segments of the population, but not others,) wtf is the point of having a national executive or legislature at all?

If you have to sell 10% of your sheep to continuing skinning the other 90%, that's what you do. Parliament is at an impasse, if letting Scotland go means they can continue to exploit the rest of the UK and run it into the ground, that's what they'll do.

[Fartsniffage]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

Who really wants to do anything on a Monday?

[Ifreann]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

Who really wants to do anything on a Monday?

Indeed, can't be governing on a Monday.

[Thanatttynia]

Moving back to, you know, actual politics relevant to today's events....

What an interesting change (not really, obviously). Does anyone think the further indicative votes will see any movement sufficient to tip one of the proposals over to 'yes' -- and beyond that, make it binding on the government in some way? I saw some mention of Cox saying how Parliament could bind the government to the votes in some form. Anyone with more knowledge of the law around to speak on that?

It's my understanding that if an indicative vote passes, it indicates that there exists a majority in Parliament for that proposal, allowing MPs to draft and pass a bill which would commit the government to do something. Given the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can theoretically tell the government to do anything and the government would have to comply... in normal times, this doesn't matter as the government controls Parliament anyway, but these are not such times. I would not even be surprised if an indicative vote passed and by the time an actual bill was being debated it would have lost enough support that it did not itself pass, making the indicative vote's passing meaningless.

[The Blaatschapen]

Boles apparently 'promised' the SNP that immigration powers would be devolved if his amendment went through, which is why they supported it. Idiotic and self-concerned politicians who can't look past the end of their own noses are going to destroy the union by accident. I would note that every time there is a hint of resistance from the SNP to basically any proposal, the only response any Westminster politicians have is to promise more devolved powers. At some point we are going to run out of powers which can be devolved, and then what?

If every meaningful governmental power is devolved to a sub-national executive and legislature (for some segments of the population, but not others,) wtf is the point of having a national executive or legislature at all?

Welcome to Belgium.

The great benefit of having a national executive with only a few powers is that you can just have an ineffective parliament to counterbalance it.

[Liriena]

I love how Ostro's interactions with feminists always reach a point where he basically treats his detractors as NPCs.

"Oh, you just disagree with me and refuse to accept my argument wholesale because you are an unthinking, indoctrinated and sheltered cult member who is just repeating a pre-programmed script... unlike me, the dude who routinely posts variations of the exact same patronizing argument unprovoked, like a British Nazeem."

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

It's weird. It would be more efficient to not decide to do something than to decide to do nothing.

[Nimzonia]

You're welcome to prove me wrong, but if you simply refuse to engage with ideas critical of yours and insist on just repeating your assertions while acting like disputing those assertions is unreasonable and doesn't need to be argued, then I'm pretty comfortable leaving it here too.

Be my guest. You could have taken the hint a few posts back.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

It's weird. It would be more efficient to not decide to do something than to decide to do nothing.

Absolutely. Which is why article 50 has a definite end date.

[Thanatttynia]

Boles apparently 'promised' the SNP that immigration powers would be devolved if his amendment went through, which is why they supported it. Idiotic and self-concerned politicians who can't look past the end of their own noses are going to destroy the union by accident. I would note that every time there is a hint of resistance from the SNP to basically any proposal, the only response any Westminster politicians have is to promise more devolved powers. At some point we are going to run out of powers which can be devolved, and then what?

If every meaningful governmental power is devolved to a sub-national executive and legislature (for some segments of the population, but not others,) wtf is the point of having a national executive or legislature at all?

Welcome to Belgium.

The great benefit of having a national executive with only a few powers is that you can just have an ineffective parliament to counterbalance it.

That's better than having an ineffective parliament with lots of powers, I guess...

Boles apparently 'promised' the SNP that immigration powers would be devolved if his amendment went through, which is why they supported it. Idiotic and self-concerned politicians who can't look past the end of their own noses are going to destroy the union by accident. I would note that every time there is a hint of resistance from the SNP to basically any proposal, the only response any Westminster politicians have is to promise more devolved powers. At some point we are going to run out of powers which can be devolved, and then what?

If every meaningful governmental power is devolved to a sub-national executive and legislature (for some segments of the population, but not others,) wtf is the point of having a national executive or legislature at all?

If you have to sell 10% of your sheep to continuing skinning the other 90%, that's what you do. Parliament is at an impasse, if letting Scotland go means they can continue to exploit the rest of the UK and run it into the ground, that's what they'll do.

It's just depressing that politics has been reduced to caretaking and administration to this extent. Maybe it always has been and this crop is just worse at hiding it, idk

[Liriena]

[quote="Ifreann";p="35515426"]I hear you've decided not to do anything again.[/quote]

Turns out that Tory austerity extends to the very practise of legislating.

[The Blaatschapen]

Welcome to Belgium.

The great benefit of having a national executive with only a few powers is that you can just have an ineffective parliament to counterbalance it.

That's better than having an ineffective parliament with lots of powers, I guess...

If you have to sell 10% of your sheep to continuing skinning the other 90%, that's what you do. Parliament is at an impasse, if letting Scotland go means they can continue to exploit the rest of the UK and run it into the ground, that's what they'll do.

It's just depressing that politics has been reduced to caretaking and administration to this extent. Maybe it always has been and this crop is just worse at hiding it, idk

With great power comes great ineffectivity.

[Ostroeuropa]

I love how Ostro's interactions with feminists always reach a point where he basically treats his detractors as NPCs.

"Oh, you just disagree with me and refuse to accept my argument wholesale because you are an unthinking, indoctrinated and sheltered cult member who is just repeating a pre-programmed script... unlike me, the dude who routinely posts variations of the exact same patronizing argument unprovoked, like a British Nazeem."

It's not a matter of refusing to accept an argument wholesale, but in being unable to even grasp the concepts being discussed because you haven't been briefed on them. As for unprovoked, the decline of Labour support was discussed and the alienation of the working classes from its values, something I based my argument around. So... this is a mischaracterization.

[Liriena]

I love how Ostro's interactions with feminists always reach a point where he basically treats his detractors as NPCs.

"Oh, you just disagree with me and refuse to accept my argument wholesale because you are an unthinking, indoctrinated and sheltered cult member who is just repeating a pre-programmed script... unlike me, the dude who routinely posts variations of the exact same patronizing argument unprovoked, like a British Nazeem."

It's not a matter of refusing to accept an argument wholesale, but in being unable to even grasp the concepts being discussed because you haven't been briefed on them. As for unprovoked, the decline of Labour support was discussed and the alienation of the working classes from its values, something I based my argument around. So... this is a mischaracterization.

I'm not British, but I'm willing to bet that Labour's woes aren't mainly or even secondarily the product of them not being dickish enough towards working immigrants.

[Great Nepal]

Moving back to, you know, actual politics relevant to today's events....

What an interesting change (not really, obviously). Does anyone think the further indicative votes will see any movement sufficient to tip one of the proposals over to 'yes' -- and beyond that, make it binding on the government in some way? I saw some mention of Cox saying how Parliament could bind the government to the votes in some form. Anyone with more knowledge of the law around to speak on that?

Probably, MPs who voted yes on customs union but switched to abstain on customs union/ common market outnumber those who switched the other way so attaching PV to either option on Wednesday makes numerical sense.

As for making it binding, I assume when one compromise option emerges they can just take control of another day and pass an actual bill. That'll be an issue if everyone currently abstaining votes against on the day, but given they're currently being whipped to abstain instead of being whipped to vote against now, May probably can't enforce a whip to vote against on the day either...

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not a matter of refusing to accept an argument wholesale, but in being unable to even grasp the concepts being discussed because you haven't been briefed on them. As for unprovoked, the decline of Labour support was discussed and the alienation of the working classes from its values, something I based my argument around. So... this is a mischaracterization.

I'm not British, but I'm willing to bet that Labour's woes aren't mainly or even secondarily the product of them not being dickish enough towards working immigrants.

Are you sure you want to take that bet?

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... lass-seats

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... party-back

The more working class voters there were in a constituency in 2017, the more it tended to swing to the Tories

[Liriena]

I'm not British, but I'm willing to bet that Labour's woes aren't mainly or even secondarily the product of them not being dickish enough towards working immigrants.

Are you sure you want to take that bet?

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... lass-seats

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... party-back

The more working class voters there were in a constituency in 2017, the more it tended to swing to the Tories

Interestingly, your second source says that Labour was more popular among working class voters under the more neolib Milliband. But also, it points to Labour's policies benefiting the middle class and neglecting the poor (particularly with higher education policy). Not much about immigration. Seems to be mainly an issue of economics.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you sure you want to take that bet?

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... lass-seats

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... party-back

Interestingly, your second source says that Labour was more popular among working class voters under the more neolib Milliband. But also, it points to Labour's policies benefiting the middle class and neglecting the poor (particularly with higher education policy). Not much about immigration. Seems to be mainly an issue of economics.

Changing communities and tradition didn't leap out to you?

[Liriena]

Interestingly, your second source says that Labour was more popular among working class voters under the more neolib Milliband. But also, it points to Labour's policies benefiting the middle class and neglecting the poor (particularly with higher education policy). Not much about immigration. Seems to be mainly an issue of economics.

Changing communities and tradition didn't leap out to you?

It did, but it'd be interesting to see what that's supposed to mean in practice, specially when we're talking about voters in very homogenous areas.

[Ifreann]

I hear you've decided not to do anything again.

It's weird. It would be more efficient to not decide to do something than to decide to do nothing.

Truly Parliament are a silly bunch.

[Fartsniffage]

It's weird. It would be more efficient to not decide to do something than to decide to do nothing.

Truly Parliament are a silly bunch.

Lord Buckethead is sadly missed.

[Bombadil]

In a speech on Saturday, Germany’s EU minister, Michael Roth, told an audience in Berlin: “Brexit is a big shitshow. I say that now very undiplomatically.”