UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[SD_Film Artists]

Guilty or not, it's curious why it's mostly Labour supporters who are wanting her to be locked up or at least investigated. Are they just that much more caring about electoral law or are they still mad at her saying less than positive things about Corbyn? Or maybe it's a case of denyal after hearing the news, shooting the messenger?

We all know Labour's doomed, but we can still hammer the BBC's clearly biased political editor for something very illegal and naughty.

Guilty or not, it's curious why it's mostly Labour supporters who are wanting her to be locked up or at least investigated. Are they just that much more caring about electoral law or are they still mad at her saying less than positive things about Corbyn? Or maybe it's a case of denyal after hearing the news, shooting the messenger?

Or maybe the Conservative supporters see no problems with this because it's news in their favour.

I'd guess the Lib Dems and other parties are fairly neutral on it; wanting to respect electoral law and see justice done if necessary, but also not having any particular grudge against her.

As for the postal votes, wouldn't they be unreliable as a poll since they're mostly done by old people?

[Ifreann]

Can they afford another bribe for the DUP?

Maybe they hid some surplus money in the fridge Johnson hid in.

Johnson's probably nicked it, then.

---

BBC decides there is no evidence that the BBC breached electoral law when LauraK announced the results of postal voting that she wasn't supposed to have seen.

Shocking turn of events.

---

I corrected my original statement because I misheard what she said the first time. She wasn't at a postal vote count, but she relayed some leaked info that does seem to break the law: https://twitter.com/Carolin31152898/sta ... 34304?s=19

Guilty or not, it's curious why it's mostly Labour supporters who are wanting her to be locked up or at least investigated. Are they just that much more caring about electoral law or are they still mad at her saying less than positive things about Corbyn? Or maybe it's a case of denyal after hearing the news, shooting the messenger?

Her reporting that Labour have done badly in the postal vote could discourage Labour voters from actually turning out tomorrow. Which, you know, kinda obviously going to piss off Labour supporters in particular.

[Fartsniffage]

I corrected my original statement because I misheard what she said the first time. She wasn't at a postal vote count, but she relayed some leaked info that does seem to break the law: https://twitter.com/Carolin31152898/sta ... 34304?s=19

Guilty or not, it's curious why it's mostly Labour supporters who are wanting her to be locked up or at least investigated. Are they just that much more caring about electoral law or are they still mad at her saying less than positive things about Corbyn? Or maybe it's a case of denyal after hearing the news, shooting the messenger?

I'm personally pretty keen on electoral laws being followed. Those cases of ballot fraud in the Midlands in 2015 in favour of the Labour party? Lock their asses up and ban them from ever participating in elections again and I said the same at the time.

Things have been getting too loose with this kind of thing lately, whether it's financial violations or this case of the Political Editor for the largest news outlet in the UK. Shit needs to be properly dealt with or in a few years we'll be talking about the good old days when elections were actually almost fair.

[The New California Republic]

Things have been getting too loose with this kind of thing lately, whether it's financial violations or this case of the Political Editor for the largest news outlet in the UK. Shit needs to be properly dealt with or in a few years we'll be talking about the good old days when elections were actually fair.

And she really has no excuse, as she is the one person that should know better, as one would hope that she is well-versed in what is acceptable and legal during elections and what isn't.

[Dresderstan]

Alright 24 hours to go until the polls close, and exit poll is released... I'm nervous but excited.

[Novus America]

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?

No, because this is not true. Sometimes no trade with a place is better than bad trade.
The rules are not better than no rules for all parties all of the time.

That is like saying “if we required all cars to be sold for $10,000 when there was no agreement as to another price it would benefit everyone”. No obviously it would not. I could just walk into a Jaguar dealership, refuse to make an agreement and get to take any car I want for $20,000, regardless of the value of the car. That would benefit me yes, but totally screw over the dealership. I would have not reason to negotiate.

Your logic is “selling things for any price is better than selling nothing at all”. That is not true. It is better to sell nothing than to sell at a loss.

If it costs me $10 to buy widgets, it is better for me to sell zero widgets than 1,000 widgets are $5 (unless I am engaging in dumping or something like that). And it is better for me to sell 1,000 for $5 than 1,000,000 for $5. Because the more I sell the more money I lose.

I am better off not doing business at all in that case.

And again that actually proves my point. If WTO rules are better than nothing, (they may be for certain countries sure, but not all countries all of the time) they have less reason to make a separate agreement.

If a country benefits from WTO rules then they have less incentive to make a separate agreement.

See if nothing is better for A, and WTO rules better for B than nothing, than how can A require B to make a separate agreement?

How can A independently apply leverage to B to make an agreement?
It cannot easily do so.

Being unable to independently restrict trade with a place makes it very hard to use such restrictions as leverage.

Which is why just reverting to WTO rules will not put the UK in a good situation to negotiate.

[SD_Film Artists]

Alright 24 hours to go until the polls close, and exit poll is released... I'm nervous but excited.

I never thought that I'd ever be hoping for a hung parliament, but I am. However I suspect that the Tories will have a small majority.

[Puertollano]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 12% (-)

via
SavantaComRes
, 09 - 10 Dec
Chgs. w/ 05 Dec


Hung Parliament territory here.

[The New California Republic]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 12% (-)

via
SavantaComRes
, 09 - 10 Dec
Chgs. w/ 05 Dec


Hung Parliament territory here.

There are a lot of mixed messages at the moment, so we'll need to wait just over another 24 hours to see.

[Dresderstan]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 12% (-)

via
SavantaComRes
, 09 - 10 Dec
Chgs. w/ 05 Dec


Hung Parliament territory here.

There are a lot of mixed messages at the moment, so we'll need to wait just over another 24 hours to see.

I've seen most polls today have a Tory lead be mostly between 6-7 to 10-12.

[Outer Sparta]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 12% (-)

via
SavantaComRes
, 09 - 10 Dec
Chgs. w/ 05 Dec


Hung Parliament territory here.

There are a lot of mixed messages at the moment, so we'll need to wait just over another 24 hours to see.

Polls range from a 5-12 point Tory lead. There's quite a large gap, so it's safe to say we can't trust any poll.

[Bear Stearns]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

[Crysuko]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

indifferent, broadly. most prefer ciggarettes, some roll their own. the major vice is alcohol, really.

[Bear Stearns]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

indifferent, broadly. most prefer ciggarettes, some roll their own. the major vice is alcohol, really.

I've noticed...drinking in the UK is insane.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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

No, because this is not true. Sometimes no trade with a place is better than bad trade.
The rules are not better than no rules for all parties all of the time.

That is like saying “if we required all cars to be sold for $10,000 when there was no agreement as to another price it would benefit everyone”. No obviously it would not. I could just walk into a Jaguar dealership, refuse to make an agreement and get to take any car I want for $20,000, regardless of the value of the car. That would benefit me yes, but totally screw over the dealership. I would have not reason to negotiate.

Your logic is “selling things for any price is better than selling nothing at all”. That is not true. It is better to sell nothing than to sell at a loss.

If it costs me $10 to buy widgets, it is better for me to sell zero widgets than 1,000 widgets are $5 (unless I am engaging in dumping or something like that). And it is better for me to sell 1,000 for $5 than 1,000,000 for $5. Because the more I sell the more money I lose.

I am better off not doing business at all in that case.

And again that actually proves my point. If WTO rules are better than nothing, (they may be for certain countries sure, but not all countries all of the time) they have less reason to make a separate agreement.

If a country benefits from WTO rules then they have less incentive to make a separate agreement.

See if nothing is better for A, and WTO rules better for B than nothing, than how can A require B to make a separate agreement?

How can A independently apply leverage to B to make an agreement?
It cannot easily do so.

Being unable to independently restrict trade with a place makes it very hard to use such restrictions as leverage.

Which is why just reverting to WTO rules will not put the UK in a good situation to negotiate.

Okay, these examples really don’t translate well to trade... do you know what WTO rules are?

Can you name one of the three basic principles of trade under GATT?

[The New California Republic]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

indifferent, broadly. most prefer ciggarettes, some roll their own. the major vice is alcohol, really.

Alcohol and cigarette consumption by young people in the UK has seen a steady decrease over the past several years.

[Souseiseki]

my official prediction for this election is "fuck knows jfc"

note: that's "jesus fucking christ" not "jeremy fucking corbyn" but "jeremy fucking corbyn" would be acceptale

[Novus America]

No, because this is not true. Sometimes no trade with a place is better than bad trade.
The rules are not better than no rules for all parties all of the time.

That is like saying “if we required all cars to be sold for $10,000 when there was no agreement as to another price it would benefit everyone”. No obviously it would not. I could just walk into a Jaguar dealership, refuse to make an agreement and get to take any car I want for $20,000, regardless of the value of the car. That would benefit me yes, but totally screw over the dealership. I would have not reason to negotiate.

Your logic is “selling things for any price is better than selling nothing at all”. That is not true. It is better to sell nothing than to sell at a loss.

If it costs me $10 to buy widgets, it is better for me to sell zero widgets than 1,000 widgets are $5 (unless I am engaging in dumping or something like that). And it is better for me to sell 1,000 for $5 than 1,000,000 for $5. Because the more I sell the more money I lose.

I am better off not doing business at all in that case.

And again that actually proves my point. If WTO rules are better than nothing, (they may be for certain countries sure, but not all countries all of the time) they have less reason to make a separate agreement.

If a country benefits from WTO rules then they have less incentive to make a separate agreement.

See if nothing is better for A, and WTO rules better for B than nothing, than how can A require B to make a separate agreement?

How can A independently apply leverage to B to make an agreement?
It cannot easily do so.

Being unable to independently restrict trade with a place makes it very hard to use such restrictions as leverage.

Which is why just reverting to WTO rules will not put the UK in a good situation to negotiate.

Okay, these examples really don’t translate well to trade... do you know what WTO rules are?

Can you name one of the three basic principles of trade under GATT?

Yes, I can.
The first one is the most problematic.
Non-discrimination

The idea that you should not be allowed to give special trade benefits to friendly countries or penalties to hostile ones.
That you should treat all countries the same despite many countries having radically different economic systems, political systems, trade profiles, etc.

It is a one size fits all for a complex thing thing.

[Shrillland]

my official prediction for this election is "fuck knows jfc"

note: that's "jesus fucking christ" not "jeremy fucking corbyn" but "jeremy fucking corbyn" would be acceptale

Tories will win, of that I have no doubt.

[Auristania]

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

No, because this is not true. Sometimes no trade with a place is better than bad trade.
The rules are not better than no rules for all parties all of the time.

That is like saying “if we required all cars to be sold for $10,000 when there was no agreement as to another price it would benefit everyone”. No obviously it would not. I could just walk into a Jaguar dealership, refuse to make an agreement and get to take any car I want for $20,000, regardless of the value of the car. That would benefit me yes, but totally screw over the dealership. I would have not reason to negotiate.

Your logic is “selling things for any price is better than selling nothing at all”. That is not true. It is better to sell nothing than to sell at a loss.

If it costs me $10 to buy widgets, it is better for me to sell zero widgets than 1,000 widgets are $5 (unless I am engaging in dumping or something like that). And it is better for me to sell 1,000 for $5 than 1,000,000 for $5. Because the more I sell the more money I lose.

I am better off not doing business at all in that case.

And again that actually proves my point. If WTO rules are better than nothing, (they may be for certain countries sure, but not all countries all of the time) they have less reason to make a separate agreement.

If a country benefits from WTO rules then they have less incentive to make a separate agreement.

See if nothing is better for A, and WTO rules better for B than nothing, than how can A require B to make a separate agreement?

How can A independently apply leverage to B to make an agreement?
It cannot easily do so.

Being unable to independently restrict trade with a place makes it very hard to use such restrictions as leverage.

Which is why just reverting to WTO rules will not put the UK in a good situation to negotiate.

This is the whole point of Corbyn's rants versus No deal Brexit. We are forced to obey whatever EU demands which means EU wins and UK loses.

[Fartsniffage]

No, because this is not true. Sometimes no trade with a place is better than bad trade.
The rules are not better than no rules for all parties all of the time.

That is like saying “if we required all cars to be sold for $10,000 when there was no agreement as to another price it would benefit everyone”. No obviously it would not. I could just walk into a Jaguar dealership, refuse to make an agreement and get to take any car I want for $20,000, regardless of the value of the car. That would benefit me yes, but totally screw over the dealership. I would have not reason to negotiate.

Your logic is “selling things for any price is better than selling nothing at all”. That is not true. It is better to sell nothing than to sell at a loss.

If it costs me $10 to buy widgets, it is better for me to sell zero widgets than 1,000 widgets are $5 (unless I am engaging in dumping or something like that). And it is better for me to sell 1,000 for $5 than 1,000,000 for $5. Because the more I sell the more money I lose.

I am better off not doing business at all in that case.

And again that actually proves my point. If WTO rules are better than nothing, (they may be for certain countries sure, but not all countries all of the time) they have less reason to make a separate agreement.

If a country benefits from WTO rules then they have less incentive to make a separate agreement.

See if nothing is better for A, and WTO rules better for B than nothing, than how can A require B to make a separate agreement?

How can A independently apply leverage to B to make an agreement?
It cannot easily do so.

Being unable to independently restrict trade with a place makes it very hard to use such restrictions as leverage.

Which is why just reverting to WTO rules will not put the UK in a good situation to negotiate.

This is the whole point of Corbyn's rants versus No deal Brexit. We are forced to obey whatever EU demands which means EU wins and UK loses.

This kind of post makes me wish people had to pass a political test before voting.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

I smoke. A seemingly disproportionate amount of people I meet at university (compared to the stats) also smoke, possibly because there's fuck all else to do in Keele. Snuff, chew etc are not popular in the slightest.

[Fartsniffage]

What is British culture like when it comes to tobacco consumption? I know cigarettes are common, but what about chew, dip, snus, and snuff?

I smoke. A seemingly disproportionate amount of people I meet at university (compared to the stats) also smoke, possibly because there's fuck all else to do in Keele. Snuff, chew etc are not popular in the slightest.

Keele University? Now I get why you're so angry at the world...

[San Lumen]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 12% (-)

via
SavantaComRes
, 09 - 10 Dec
Chgs. w/ 05 Dec


Hung Parliament territory here.

and then its quite likely we get a vote of no confidence and we are back here again in short order.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

At this time in 24 hours I predict Sunderland Central announces first with a less than 5-10% majority for Labour.

Labour and Channel 4 goes into full meltdown mode and we begin to see crying on TV as they progressively appear conscious to the news that North England doesn't want Magic Grandpa with his Latte solutions to mug of tea problems.

Tories end up winning somewhere between 340 and 400 seats, probably like 355. Though I don't know about the Lib Dem factor, so I'll just say the other way round, Labour will win somewhere between 250 and 190 seats, most likely around 220.