UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[The New California Republic]

If there is a hung parliament, the Conservatives are going to struggle to find anyone to work with to form a government.

I'm sure the Lib Dems would be willing to shoot themselves in the foot again. Not.

[Outer Sparta]

If there is a hung parliament, the Conservatives are going to struggle to find anyone to work with to form a government.

I'm sure the Lib Dems would be willing to shoot themselves in the foot again. Not.

But Corbyn bad!

[Vassenor]

If there is a hung parliament, the Conservatives are going to struggle to find anyone to work with to form a government.

I'm sure the Lib Dems would be willing to shoot themselves in the foot again. Not.

So how widespread was the "we're fine propping up the Conservatives if they claim to want a second referendum" idea in the end?

[Novus America]

Unless you have other trade agreements lined up true.
Because then you have no alternative.

But bi-lateral trade agreements tailored to the specifics between the two countries in question are much superior to the WTO’s idiotic and idealogical one size fits all approach.

For example under WTO rules, absent a separate bilateral trade agreement you must treat trade with Australia and the PRC the same way. Despite both countries having a completely different political system, completely different national security concerns, completely different internal economic laws, and a completely different trade profile.

Besides the WTO is too big and unwieldy. Getting enough countries to agree to update it to meet changing economic conditions is extremely difficult.

It moves at the pace of a snail frozen in a glacier. It never has and never will be able to keep up in the digital economy and a changing world.

Bi lateral agreements on the other hand allow you to apply different rules to different countries to account for the fact that different countries are well different.

Plus you can much more easily update and change them because it only requires agreement between two parties, not a hundred.

I underlined, made bold and enlarged the relevant part.

Even in your own complaint you agree that WTO rules can be set aside for seperate bilateral agreements. The system that you want already exists. The standardised WTO rules only apply when countries do not have their own bilateral agreements. So, what is the complaint?

Because we then have to accept horrible rules with the countries we do not have a separate agreement with, and many countries do not want to make an fair agreement.

If they will not make a fair agreement we should not have to accept any rules with them at all.
Or make special rules to encourage them to make an agreement.
When they can avoid an agreement and still get trade benefits we lose leverage to make an agreement.

We do not need the WTO at all.
And if the UK wants to break free of neoliberal trade ideology, it needs to leave the group that destroys their leverage to make deals.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm sure the Lib Dems would be willing to shoot themselves in the foot again. Not.

So how widespread was the "we're fine propping up the Conservatives if they claim to want a second referendum" idea in the end?

It was never widespread; it was mainly something that staunch Corbyn supporters (do you perhaps know any?) used as a stick to beat LibDems with.

It was never going to go any further than a temporary supply agreement to allow the referendum legislation to pass under the wildly unlikely sequence of events that: A) the Tories were the largest party in a hung party, B) the LibDems had enough MPs to grant a majority to second referendum legislation after subtracting ERG members who would never go along with a referendum, C) the Conservative Party leadership were willing to countenance a referendum, and D) the referendum had 'remain' as an option.

So was it possible to imagine a set of circumstances under which it would have been possible? I suppose.

Was it ever remotely likely? No.

[Salandriagado]

I underlined, made bold and enlarged the relevant part.

Even in your own complaint you agree that WTO rules can be set aside for seperate bilateral agreements. The system that you want already exists. The standardised WTO rules only apply when countries do not have their own bilateral agreements. So, what is the complaint?

Because we then have to accept horrible rules with the countries we do not have a separate agreement with, and many countries do not want to make an fair agreement.

If they will not make a fair agreement we should not have to accept any rules with them at all.
Or make special rules to encourage them to make an agreement.
When they can avoid an agreement and still get trade benefits we lose leverage to make an agreement.

We do not need the WTO at all.

You realise that the WTO rules are absolutely unquestionably better for all participants than not having an agreement at all, right?

[Gormwood]

Because we then have to accept horrible rules with the countries we do not have a separate agreement with, and many countries do not want to make an fair agreement.

If they will not make a fair agreement we should not have to accept any rules with them at all.
Or make special rules to encourage them to make an agreement.
When they can avoid an agreement and still get trade benefits we lose leverage to make an agreement.

We do not need the WTO at all.

You realise that the WTO rules are absolutely unquestionably better for all participants than not having an agreement at all, right?

He probably thinks all the trade wars will be "America, FUCK YEAH!!!"

[Crysuko]

Riddle me this. I've heard plenty of people saying that the yougov poll is super duper accurate and all that, out the sample size and likely method seems flawed to me. So why then is it being treated as gospel?

[Vassenor]

Riddle me this. I've heard plenty of people saying that the yougov poll is super duper accurate and all that, out the sample size and likely method seems flawed to me. So why then is it being treated as gospel?

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

[Outer Sparta]

Riddle me this. I've heard plenty of people saying that the yougov poll is super duper accurate and all that, out the sample size and likely method seems flawed to me. So why then is it being treated as gospel?

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

It's still better not to trust any poll. Despite what the polls say, people should go out and vote.

[The East Marches II]

You realise that the WTO rules are absolutely unquestionably better for all participants than not having an agreement at all, right?

He probably thinks all the trade wars will be "America, FUCK YEAH!!!"

Not at all, his analysis of things is far beyond a shallow investigation of things. You ought not assume he views things with the same rigor as yourself.

[The Archregimancy]

Right, final predictions time. I think that the Tories are going to get a majority in the range of 330-340 seats, mostly taken from Labour and gains from seats lost to rebels. Labour will get somewhere from 230 to 240, also regaining some rebel seats. The Lib Dems will lose seats overall due to their current ranks being bulked out with ex Labour and Tory MPs, but will take a couple from the Tories in return, putting them somewhere around 15. The SNP should at least retain what they've got. The Brexit Party will fail to make any impact, while Plaid and the Greens will probably remain unchanged on 4 and 1 each. Sinn Fein and the DUP will likely remain the only NI parties with Westminster seats, give or take one or two maybe lost to the Alliance Party.

Oh, go on then.

Conservative: 340 +/- 5

Labour: 220 +/- 5

SNP: 43 +/- 2

LibDems: 20 +/- 2

Plaid Cymru: 4

Greens: 1

Brexit: 0

NI: 18 seats; no specific predictions (sorry, Huskar)

Final result: Narrow Conservative majority.

I realise that if you use my median figures in the seat ranges it only adds up to 646; but I've allowed for some variation.

Also note that what I'm predicting to happen and what I want to happen are not congruent.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How after half a century of Tory and Not!Tory misrule of the isles they still get the vote of confidence from the Brits is honestly amazing.

[Souseiseki]

How after half a century of Tory and Not!Tory misrule of the isles they still get the vote of confidence from the Brits is honestly amazing.

the electoral system is mathematically biased towards a two party system and the two parties support this because they know it ensures they stay in power.

there are a lot of people who would love to vote for someone else, but they can't do so without risking the people they dislike even more getting in.

[The Archregimancy]

And one more thought...

Whatever our political differences, the British participants in this thread are obviously highly politically engaged.

So please vote.

Ultimately our democracy depends on people engaging with the process; we all hope that as many people as possible vote for the party we each support, but that support also depends on us actually going out to a polling booth and voting.

So vote.

Especially if you're under 30; you don't want the over 50s like me controlling your future again, do you?

[Outer Sparta]

And one more thought...

Whatever our political differences, the British participants in this thread are obviously highly politically engaged.

So please vote.

Ultimately our democracy depends on people engaging with the process; we all hope that as many people as possible vote for the party we each support, but that support also depends on us actually going out to a polling booth and voting.

So vote.

Especially if you're under 30; you don't want the over 50s like me controlling your future again, do you?

I'm not British, but I have been paying attention to the UK election. I'm not of influence to affect the election, but I can tell people to vote despite being an international observer.

[The New California Republic]

And one more thought...

Whatever our political differences, the British participants in this thread are obviously highly politically engaged.

So please vote.

Ultimately our democracy depends on people engaging with the process; we all hope that as many people as possible vote for the party we each support, but that support also depends on us actually going out to a polling booth and voting.

So vote.

Especially if you're under 30; you don't want the over 50s like me controlling your future again, do you?

And don't forget to strongly encourage friends and family too. If you can drive then give the auld yins a lift to the polling station.

[Salandriagado]

Riddle me this. I've heard plenty of people saying that the yougov poll is super duper accurate and all that, out the sample size and likely method seems flawed to me. So why then is it being treated as gospel?

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

Except the Worms Armageddon model.

[Liriena]

Imagine thinking anyone in politics isn’t corrupt.

Ah, yes, a nice traditional bit of pure ideology there.

[Crysuko]

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

Except the Worms Armageddon model.

You need a magnitude 15 Heart influence to beat that.

[Major-Tom]

Riddle me this. I've heard plenty of people saying that the yougov poll is super duper accurate and all that, out the sample size and likely method seems flawed to me. So why then is it being treated as gospel?

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

Exactly, but even then, I don't think people should see any poll as sacrosanct.

[Outer Sparta]

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

Exactly, but even then, I don't think people should see any poll as sacrosanct.

YouGov may be wrong this election cycle. No one poll can be consistently right every election cycle.

[Vassenor]

Because it was the only model to predict Hung Parliament '17.

Exactly, but even then, I don't think people should see any poll as sacrosanct.

Especially when the people behind this one have said it's not absolute and the error potential makes Hung Parliament '19 possible within it.

[Major-Tom]

Exactly, but even then, I don't think people should see any poll as sacrosanct.

YouGov may be wrong this election cycle. No one poll can be consistently right every election cycle.

Somehow their methodology works for them, so I'll keep a close eye on their prediction (even if they may be wrong).

If I recall, their final projection put the Tories anywhere from 311-364 seats when all margins of error and whatnot were accounted for. That's a huge fucking disparity in seat counts, so anything could happen. I'm just relatively pessimistic, seeing as it's a day before the election and Labour just isn't polling what they were polling the day before the 2017 general.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

It's a rather different Conservative Party from the one that fought the 2017 election, given its lurch to the right and purging of decent people. I think that will throw the accuracy of quite a lot of polling.