• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

milo said:
Anyway. Say what you like about Zac Goldsmith but he was behind just about the only two news stories that I have enjoyed this year.
Click to expand...
Have to say though there 2 worrying points from this by election. 1) the collapse of the Labour vote share and 2) Sarah Olney saying she will vote against triggering article 50. I am a passionate remainer but to hold a binary referendum, get a clear majority in one direction and then to ignore the result is the wrong way to go. It would erode the standing of politicians further and lead to civil unrest. She should be working to get the best deal for Britain.
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
Have to say though there 2 worrying points from this by election. 1) the collapse of the Labour vote share and 2) Sarah Olney saying she will vote against triggering article 50. I am a passionate remainer but to hold a binary referendum, get a clear majority in one direction and then to ignore the result is the wrong way to go. If would erode the standing of politicians further and lead to civil unrest. She should be working to get the best deal for Britain.
Click to expand...

Labour have real problems, they risk getting squeezed by the Lib Dems in cities and UKIP in the country. Those are irreconcilable positions. The Tories have a similar problem but more of them come home at general elections.

Olney should vote as she sees fit. She ran on an anti-Brexit ticket and was elected. I can see why she would feel like she has a mandate to vote against.

My preference would be for parliament to set tests for Brexit negotiations to pass, such as the future prosperity of the country, ease of trading, access to the common market, share of wealth, freedom of travel etc. These are things that the Leave campaign said they would be achieved/maintained by leaving the EU during the referendum and parliament would be justified on holding them to.
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
Have to say though there 2 worrying points from this by election. 1) the collapse of the Labour vote share and 2) Sarah Olney saying she will vote against triggering article 50. I am a passionate remainer but to hold a binary referendum, get a clear majority in one direction and then to ignore the result is the wrong way to go. It would erode the standing of politicians further and lead to civil unrest. She should be working to get the best deal for Britain.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that plenty of Labour voters would have voted for the Lib Dems tactically in this election and that will probably happen again in 2020, if it means the Tories losing seats. I'd do the same if I were them, it's the only way to do it in our electoral system. (Goldsmith wasn't a proper independent in this election, it's why the Tories never stood anyone against him).

By 2020 though, Article 50 will have been triggered and we may well be out of the EU. So I don't think there will be a plethora of Labour voters going to vote Lib Dem on the basis of Brexit unless it's to hurt the Tories, which will benefit them.

Assuming the Lib Dems would never go into coalition with the Tories (at least, not in the next couple of General Elections) then I think a resurgent Lib Dem party might actually mean we end up with a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government. I could live with that. A lot of ifs ands and maybes there though, a lot can happen in the world by 2020.
 
the dza said:
I would have thought that plenty of Labour voters would have voted for the Lib Dems tactically in this election and that will probably happen again in 2020, if it means the Tories losing seats. I'd do the same if I were them, it's the only way to do it in our electoral system. (Goldsmith wasn't a proper independent in this election, it's why the Tories never stood anyone against him).

By 2020 though, Article 50 will have been triggered and we may well be out of the EU. So I don't think there will be a plethora of Labour voters going to vote Lib Dem on the basis of Brexit unless it's to hurt the Tories, which will benefit them.

Assuming the Lib Dems would never go into coalition with the Tories (at least, not in the next couple of General Elections) then I think a resurgent Lib Dem party might actually mean we end up with a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government. I could live with that. A lot of ifs ands and maybes there though, a lot can happen in the world by 2020.
Click to expand...

Labour are heading for a hiding if they do not ditch Corbyn before the next election. The Lib Dems are second place to the Tories in loads of seats, if they carry on picking up byelections, it will be hard for the Tories to tack to the right. That could change their Brexit negotiating position.

Even if we have left the EU by 2020, it is highly unlikely that we will have a permanent trade deal in place. A referral to the ECJ on A50 or A127 and they we won't be out by 2020.
 
StephenH said:
I can't get too stressed anymore - Trump finished me off.
Click to expand...

Roger-Moore.png
 
milo said:
That's not really true. We got fobbed off in India and the same will happen elsewhere until our position with the EU is settled or we agree deals on brickty terms.
Click to expand...
We got fobbed off in India for political, not economic reasons.

Any deal we have agreed before EU discussions make us stronger - they would rather be dealing with a country that has to accept what they're offering. We're doing the sensible thing and strengthening our hand first.
 
milo said:
Olney should vote as she sees fit. She ran on an anti-Brexit ticket and was elected. I can see why she would feel like she has a mandate to vote against.
Click to expand...
Going against the national will for a remit from a few local voters just starts to sound like the secession nutjobs in the US.
 
scaramanga said:
We got fobbed off in India for political, not economic reasons.

Any deal we have agreed before EU discussions make us stronger - they would rather be dealing with a country that has to accept what they're offering. We're doing the sensible thing and strengthening our hand first.
Click to expand...

We got fobbed off in India for a number of reasons. It is going to be difficult to conclude a deal with them unless we are prepared to open up our immigration and student access. We were also one of the counties that blocked their EU deal because of the tariffs they wanted on Scotch, so there is probably a bit of afters there.

We cannot agree a trade deal with another country before we leave the EU but I take your point about agreeing (everything but signing) a deal. That may strengthen our hand with Europe but it is very likely that we would getting a lesser deal with the third country than we could get after having an EU trade deal in place.

I disagree about us doing the sensible thing. Pretty much everything that the government has done so far has weakened our hand and we have just about the weakest (and most discredited) member of the cabinet leading on international trade.
 
milo said:
We're talking about one MP who has been elected on a single issue ticket.
Click to expand...
And that MP is part of a democracy that has made a decision. You can't them cherry pick a handful of votes and decide that only those ones count.
 
scaramanga said:
And that MP is part of a democracy that has made a decision. You can't them cherry pick a handful of votes and decide that only those ones count.
Click to expand...

That MP was voted in after the referendum on a mandate to oppose it, in a constituency that voted 70% remain in the referendum, of course she can.
 
Robspur12 said:
Have to say though there 2 worrying points from this by election. 1) the collapse of the Labour vote share and 2) Sarah Olney saying she will vote against triggering article 50. I am a passionate remainer but to hold a binary referendum, get a clear majority in one direction and then to ignore the result is the wrong way to go. It would erode the standing of politicians further and lead to civil unrest. She should be working to get the best deal for Britain.
Click to expand...

Labour supporters voted tactically to get the Tory out.
 
milo said:
That MP was voted in after the referendum on a mandate to oppose it, in a constituency that voted 70% remain in the referendum, of course she can.
Click to expand...
Not for me. The referendum was voted on and lost.

The by-election was voted on by an entirely different set of voters and should have no bearing whatsoever on a national vote.

This is just the student party trying to make itself relevant again. Richmond was a good place to start too - anyone should be able to win against a political fudgewit like Goldsmith.
 
scaramanga said:
Not for me. The referendum was voted on and lost.

The by-election was voted on by an entirely different set of voters and should have no bearing whatsoever on a national vote.

This is just the student party trying to make itself relevant again. Richmond was a good place to start too - anyone should be able to win against a political fudgewit like Goldsmith.
Click to expand...

She's there to represent her constituents, not the nation.

When it comes to student politics, Goldsmith takes the crown. The only problem being, he's not very good at them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back