General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

No memes for us today, thanks!

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate. I think we can all agree that this is a welcome development, whether you're in favour of Leave or Remain.

Failing to secure a majority, Brexit is pretty much dead in the water - with Johnson nearby, presumably in a ditch.

A Dub in Glasgo

Just back from the polling station, voted for the SNP as did my wife and son

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate. I think we can all agree that this is a welcome development, whether you're in favour of Leave or Remain.

Failing to secure a majority, Brexit is pretty much dead in the water - with Johnson nearby, presumably in a ditch.

The beginning of the end of the Brexit debate?!

Even if Johnson gets a large majority, details on trade talks will feature daily on the news for the next 5+ years. Sounds like pure, interminable hell to me.

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

and what would turn it from an intention to back, to actual backing?

The offer of a long term contract maybe?



It was a good idea, managed badly. As I said, in a non Brexit world it would probably have gotten off the ground, the CEO of an established sea freight company seems to think so any way, but bad publicity tends to scare people away.

Actual backing is the committal of resources by the backer.

Short of a signed contract (establishing a promissory estoppel), promising resources is not backing, and still less so when making their delivery conditional on securing an order from the client in the first place.

It may have been a good idea. It wasn't "managed" in the least, as a going concern that is, and I very much doubt there was enough of a business case for it without the government contract associated with no deal-Brexit contingency planning.

The cynical in me, after the last 3 years' worth of post-truth governance in UK plc, would even push the boat so far, as to believe that it was engineered to fail, for Seabourne to cash in a few £m's worth of taxpayers' hard-earned under the early termination clauses.

Lord knows I've seen public bodies (Councils, NHS) run afoul of those often enough, frequently as not because the awarding body could not negotiate its way out of a paperbag; sometimes also, due to a culture of 'promoting problems away' turbocharging the effects of the Peters principle.

Anyway, enough O/T: I Brexoded early last year, so at least it wasn't my tax contributions that Grayling spaffed on his mates. So don't bother #votingforme, just enjoy your dystopian future.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate.

Keep hoping, but I think you'll be disappointed, seeing as no-one proposing Brexit has yet defined any objective benefit for Brexit, nor what it really means; and the only way forward (the supposedly "oven-ready" Withdrawal Agreement) was prevented from being ratified by Parliament by the very same Prime Minister who was still proclaiming its brilliance up until yesterday.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate. I think we can all agree that this is a welcome development, whether you're in favour of Leave or Remain.

Failing to secure a majority, Brexit is pretty much dead in the water - with Johnson nearby, presumably in a ditch.

If you mean that it will allow the Tory party to plough on and ignore the wishes of the majority of the population, then yes.

If you mean that the debate over why on earth it is happening and what benefit it is then not by any stretch.

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

It was a good idea, managed badly. As I said, in a non Brexit world it would probably have gotten off the ground, the CEO of an established sea freight company seems to think so any way, but bad publicity tends to scare people away.

Good ideas don't tend to require the payment of compensation to legitimate operators who were excluded from the bidding process. :rolleyes:

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Good ideas don't tend to require the payment of compensation to legitimate operators who were excluded from the bidding process. :rolleyes:

that has nothing to do with Seaborne. The Ramsgate thing was not part of the bidding process.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

If you mean that it will allow the Tory party to plough on and ignore the wishes of the majority of the population, then yes.

If you mean that the debate over why on earth it is happening and what benefit it is then not by any stretch.

I think the debate might go on, regardless.

Imagine a situation in which Labour hold a second referendum with no credible Leave option; just a form of Remain without any voice in Europe. Nobody could possinbly vote for that arrangement as it would be better to Remain in the EU.

Facing this, I imagine there would be an enormous backlash from the 17.4 million people who opted to Brexit.

So yes, from that vantage point, I think the debate may continue regardless of tonight's exit poll.

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

Harwich could, but you are comparing apples and oranges though. The UK doesn't need superferries like the one from Dublin, because the crossings aren't as long and there are a lot more of them.

there are over 30 ferries a day on the Dover-Calais route alone, compared with a maximum of six on the Dublin-Holyhead route. That is ignoring the 15 trains per day from London to Paris.

You seem to be forgetting the purpose of trying to re-open Ransgate. It was to try and mitigate the expected bottlenecks in Dover.

The super ferries that Stena operate from Harwich were super back in 2006 when they were commissioned. Not so much now.

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate. I think we can all agree that this is a welcome development, whether you're in favour of Leave or Remain.

Failing to secure a majority, Brexit is pretty much dead in the water - with Johnson nearby, presumably in a ditch.

It slightly feels like you dont understand what and how brexit is.


in 2017 the UK opened up pandoros box of whatever your having yourself, meaning different things to different people. With no concept to deliver. hence we are here talking about an election today.

Brexit debate will never be over even if johnson only had tories sitting on both sides of the house.

Its gas that you cant see that. Amazing that only remainers can... Election fun!

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Conservatives do secure a majority, I hope this signals the end of the beginning of the Brexit debate. I think we can all agree that this is a welcome development, whether you're in favour of Leave or Remain.

Nope. Brexit (if it ever happens) will be worse than the uncertainty over whether Brexit will happen or not.

It's like uncertainty over whether a guy on the roof is going to jump or not. Better that the uncertainty continues than that the uncertainty is resolved by him jumping.

Better Than Christ

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you were to say that Corbyn and Labour currently can't seem to score an open goal, I'd agree with you. But I'm not sure that he is the worst Labour leader in the last 40 years. If you measure it on electoral success, in 2017 he has won more than Gordon Browne (2010) and Ed Milliband (2015), and even based on the predictions of Labour losing 40-50 seats he will still be on a par with 2015.

Second most successful Labour leader in the last 40 years. And unlike Blair, he was hamstrung by an unprecedented level of hostility throughout the mainstream media. Fair enough, any Labour leader will get attacked by the Daily Mail (or in the case of Miliband, it was his dead father who got attacked), but had the BBC adopted a balanced, non-partisan stance since 2015, things would have been very different.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the debate might go on, regardless.

Imagine a situation in which Labour hold a second referendum with no credible Leave option; just a form of Remain without any voice in Europe. Nobody could possinbly vote for that arrangement as it would be better to Remain in the EU.

Facing this, I imagine there would be an enormous backlash from the 17.4 million people who opted to Brexit.

So yes, from that vantage point, I think the debate may continue regardless of tonight's exit poll.

If the 17.4 million have an idea that is better than remain then they should present it. Otherwise the sensible choice is to pick the best option for the future, which as you've just admitted is to remain in the EU.

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

and what would turn it from an intention to back, to actual backing?

The offer of a long term contract maybe?

The signing of a contract. Obviously.

Aegir wrote: »

It was a good idea, managed badly. As I said, in a non Brexit world it would probably have gotten off the ground, the CEO of an established sea freight company seems to think so any way, but bad publicity tends to scare people away.

Bad publicity brought about by the fact that the promoters had diddly squat experience in the industry.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the debate might go on, regardless.

Imagine a situation in which Labour hold a second referendum with no credible Leave option; just a form of Remain without any voice in Europe. Nobody could possinbly vote for that arrangement as it would be better to Remain in the EU.

Facing this, I imagine there would be an enormous backlash from the 17.4 million people who opted to Brexit.

So yes, from that vantage point, I think the debate may continue regardless of tonight's exit poll.

If there is a second referendum and Labour put Leave as one option, Leave will be defeated. Tonight is make or break for Brexit. If the Tories lose, it is a crushing hammer blow to the 2016 referendum result.

The Sun virtually admit as much on their front page today :

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Yes, they will be struggling for things to say tomorrow. Expect lots of pictures of dogs outside polling stations and then there will be great excitement when a picture of a horse tied up outside a polling station emerges in time for the lunchtime news.

There will also be a few pictures of polling stations setup in the boot of someone's car after the caretaker for the local school didn't turn up to unlock the doors in time.

Can't believe that I got the timing right, but at 13:10 two pictures of horses at polling stations showed up on the BBC Live New feed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50755004

Not seen a boot of a car polling station yet, but there was a shipping container and a launderette pictured early this morning, along with the other obligatory picture of some nuns voting.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the debate might go on, regardless.

Imagine a situation in which Labour hold a second referendum with no credible Leave option; just a form of Remain without any voice in Europe. Nobody could possinbly vote for that arrangement as it would be better to Remain in the EU.

Facing this, I imagine there would be an enormous backlash from the 17.4 million people who opted to Brexit.

So yes, from that vantage point, I think the debate may continue regardless of tonight's exit poll.

Putting no deal on the ballot is fundamentally irresponsible and the implication that we should be held in thrall to the feelings of 17.4 million people who made a decision over three years ago is perverse.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting the purpose of trying to re-open Ransgate. It was to try and mitigate the expected bottlenecks in Dover.

It was part of the plan, along with extra ferries from Teesport, Hull, Killingholme, Felixstowe, Harwich, Tilbury, Portsmouth and Poole. Ramsgate was a small part of the olution, it was never The solution

prawnsambo wrote: »

The super ferries that Stena operate from Harwich were super back in 2006 when they were commissioned. Not so much now.

I'm not sure what actually defines a superferry, but the two ferries from Harwich are larger than anything that goes between Dublin and the UK.

whatawaster

Strazdas wrote: »

The Sun virtually admit as much on their front page today :

Do you really need to post images from that vile rag here?

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine a situation in which Labour hold a second referendum with no credible Leave option; just a form of Remain without any voice in Europe. Nobody could possinbly vote for that arrangement as it would be better to Remain in the EU.

Imagine a situation where May or Johnson present a plan for Brexit which is not credible and nobody could possibly vote for it.

Wait, we don't have to imagine it, they both already did present plans with no credibility which Parliament could not vote for!

And the same will be true for any real-world plan for Brexit, it will be rejected in any referendum. Because the Brexit the Leavers promised in 2016 is impossible.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Putting no deal on the ballot is fundamentally irresponsible and the implication that we should be held in thrall to the feelings of 17.4 million people who made a decision over three years ago is perverse.

As I said just above, if there is a Corbyn - Sturgeon government, I think even every 2016 Leave voter will know the game is up for Brexit.

The idea of a multi party coalition ever implementing a Tory proposal and voted for mainly by Tory voters seems very far fetched. The dynamic in the UK would shift dramatically with the Conservatives out of power.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Imagine a situation where May or Johnson present a plan for Brexit which is not credible and nobody could possibly vote for it.

Wait, we don't have to imagine it, they both already did present plans with no credibility which Parliament could not vote for!

And the same will be true for any real-world plan for Brexit, it will be rejected in any referendum. Because the Brexit the Leavers promised in 2016 is impossible.

Upwards of 45% of voters are opting to Brexit - and opting for the Johnson Deal - in this election.

I'll take their words for it, thank you very much.

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

It was part of the plan, along with extra ferries from Teesport, Hull, Killingholme, Felixstowe, Harwich, Tilbury, Portsmouth and Poole. Ramsgate was a small part of the olution, it was never The solution

I'm sure you have a point there, but that's not what I said.

Aegir wrote: »

I'm not sure what actually defines a superferry, but the two ferries from Harwich are larger than anything that goes between Dublin and the UK.

Again, not what I said either.. Do you just want to have a discussion with an imaginary poster? I said Dublin port. Takes bigger ferries than the UK can. Nothing about the routes between Dublin and the UK. MV Celine is 74,000 tonnes. The biggest Stena ferry into Harwich is 62,000 tonnes.

Strazdas

whatawaster wrote: »

Do you really need to post images from that vile rag here?

It's useful evidence in a possible scenario where Leave voters would claim in future that even the Conservatives being turfed out of office would have no implications for the 2016 referendum result.

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

I'm kind of glad they have kept Diane Abbot away from the media this time around. I have a lot of respect for her as an MP, but I don't think she is party leadership material.

She got destroyed two years ago and her interview on LBC was the car crash of the campaign, to the point where I actually thought she might be ill.

She actually was ill, but still did her job which tells you a lot about her.

Just to make one point clear, the reason I voted against her nomination all those years ago wasn't because she was (is) a bit abrasive, or that she just lodged herself right up my nose it was because I felt she had no demonstrable connection to the borough or the constituency she was going to represent.
I didn't think a former reporter, GLC press officer who went to Cambridge (on merit!) but was really from Saff Landan would 'get' a constituency as diverse as Hackney North Stoke Newington. She would have to represent the proto-hipsters of Stokie and the Hassidim of Stamford Hill, the owners of large Georgian piles and the renters of LA flats in Tower blocks - plus the largest concentration of LGB voters in the world (crazy but true) right as AIDS was causing both horror and violence.
I mistakenly thought it would take someone who, if not born there, had lived there for a good few years and cut their teeth as at least a Councillor.
I was completely incorrect, for all her abrasiveness she has walked that tightrope skillfully.

I agree she is not party leadership material - but as afaik she has never shown any interest in the role it a bit moot.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Upwards of 45% of voters are opting to Brexit - and opting for the Johnson Deal - in this election.

I'll take their words for it, thank you very much.

So if 55% vote for pro-referendum parties you're content to call this democratic?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So if 55% vote for pro-referendum parties you're content to call this democratic?

That's the nature of the political beast when it comes to a General Election.

I'd prefer proportional representation.

In any event, this election may serve to fulfil the 2016 result and, as the public have had 3.5 years to chew over the question in immense detail, have come to the sound conclusion that the direction the country should take is one of Conservative principle and one that opts to respect the 2016 result.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the nature of the political beast when it comes to a General Election.

I'd prefer proportional representation.

In any event, this election may serve to fulfil the 2016 result and, as the public have had 3.5 years to chew over the question in immense detail, have come to the sound conclusion that the direction the country should take is one of Conservative principle and one that opts to respect the 2016 result.

I was with you until the last part. If the Conservatives haven't respected the result for nearly 3.5 years, why would they start now? Many of them voted down their own deal which they are now parading as some sort of triumph.