I just wish that the parties of the centre and left, and Labour in particular, showed a bit of common sense and pooled their resources against the Tories. If they only stood candidates in seats where they had a realistic chance of winning, and united on an anti-sleaze and anti-poverty ticket, the centre and left could finally shift these vermin from power.
Instead, all that happens is that the non-Conservative vote gets fragmented in every constituency and they waltz in nationally. It’s a fucking joke.
For me there are no (sane/viable) options in the centre or the left. So it is either the status quo, i.e. the current lot, or the loony left. The current lot will point to successfully delivering BREXIT, successfully navigating COVID and leading the world past a potential third world war.
What will the left point at, delivering ineffective opposition? Not hindering the progress of this glorious governments path to ever new heights (depths?)? What?
I want another option but I’m not sure there will be and definitely not convinced by the opposition (not that I’ll vote for the current lot - just to clarify).
I don’t think it is that easy. For example, Lib Dems pick up votes in some areas precisely because they are not Labour. Likewise, many in the Labour Party see Lib Dems as Tory lite and won’t want to support them.
Then there is the added policy complications where Labour try to play down the Brexit differences but Lib Dems continue to make a big fuss of it allowing both parties to be drawn into the cultural war this Conservative Party are trying to draw them into.
When Labour and SNP were mulling over a possible election pact, the Tories campaigned hard on that issue and scared them away from doing so. I think the aim of the opposition parties is to for the General Election fight independently but look to form a co-alition if the numbers are there afterwards.
Is Rishi actually comparing a woman ridiculed on the world stage about a disease she has that she isn’t in control of, with his wife who is getting attacked because she is doing nothing about removing her links with a company operating in Russia?
I am sure I didn’t understand it properly. Surely? Or is Rishi a whiny cunt like me?
I voted brexit because of my own beliefs and one of them was because of a big truth that we as a nation was lied to …the one that we would only be joining a trading block but for all these years spineless politicians having been pushing for a political union which I want no part of.
100% respect that but do you think it was worth burning all our bridges to achieve that?
Surely there was an answer to that problem without the nuclear option?
As time has passed its this that bugs me most I think. The fact that so many were convinced that a nuclear option was the only way forward to cover our own governments “mismanagement” of being an EU member.
That con pisses me off a bit to be honest. It basically opened the door to the screwed up politics we’re seeing today.
This is the immediate aftermath. Such a significant shift can only properly be judged over the long term.
It will always be impossible to know how things would be different had we stayed but I strongly believe that the UK will thrive long term and we’ll look back positively on the decision to leave the EU.
Completely fair and that has been your position since year dot.
I don’t have a crystal ball but I don’t really subscribe to the idea that burning bridges leads to progress. Simply because you have to rebuild those bridges or new ones to start making progress again. Rebuilding relationships can be difficult as memories can linger. I think other solutions could, should have been explored. Maybe May’s deal was one of those? But that again comes back to people being convinced that the nuclear option was the way forward. That was the disappointing part for me retrospectively.
The open-ended question was the original sin that led to the mutual disaster that was the negotiation process. I really don’t think the majority of Yes voters were looking for a ‘burn all bridges’ outcome, and had that outcome been on the ballot, it likely would not have passed. But the negotiation process between the EU and the UK radicalized a lot of Yes voters, for which there is ample blame to spread. I don’t think there was ever a point in the process where EU and UK leaders genuinely thought through what the mutual optimal end would be, and how to get there. In game theory terms, it became a nested series of zero-sum negotiations that gradually moved the outcome to somewhere way below a point on the optimal curve.
Maybe over time that gets resolved, but it will likely be slow.
I don’t think there was ever an optimal end. What most talking heads were calling for were incompatible with anything the EU could offer. I still remember Theresa May’s red lines very clearly. Once you have those red lines, this was the only natural conclusion.
I think it was pointed out before way up in this thread that if you had a referendum based on what people would want the relationship with the EU to be, then there is no way any Leave option would have won out.
I always saw it as a question of time and I think the EU to a large extent did as well. The UK on the other hand wanted all defined in one go. May’s deal imo was reasonable as it allowed time to play a part after the deal (also imo). This deal was rejected because it didn’t fast track to a UK win. The final outcome just lead to the political stale mates we see now and it is going to take much longer than ever to get to something reasonable, it just became too antagonostic.
Anyway I’ll stop before I start getting angry.
