Be Excellent To Each Other

Boris Johnson's proven track record of failing on almost every promise he ever made as London Mayor, and of potentially losing a referendum whilst riding the political coat tails of Nigel Farage.

Lord have mercy.

Bwahahahah!!! Funniest statement I've read in a good while.
No, they really don't you know; they look like a bunch of thick idiots too stupid to even have a remotest clue between them.

Abbott the intellectual?
Livingstone the intellectual?

Johnson might be unpleasant but he's a very clever, articulate man who loves to be underestimated; Cameron is similarly very expensively educated, erudite and ruthless; just look how stupid he makes Corbyn look each week at PMQs.

Doc, you truly are the master of wishful thinking, just like so many of your lefty ilk. Whereas Tories are (generally) happy to concede their movement's many legacy mistakes and current woes, the Left is utterly delusional and in self denial about its own. I can't make up my mind whether it's abject conceit or swivel eyed stupidity; probably a bit of both.

*buzzer*

Sorry, I meant to write pseudo-intellectual. On reflection, I'd also add "earnest" to that list.

You do realise "holier than thou" is a pejorative, right? I wasn't complimenting the left here.

But now you're back in this thread, please do share with us how this Tory infighting, if anything, reflects quite well on the Prime Minister.

You realise "swivel-eyed loon" is a phrase used by Tories against other Tories, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... dwood.html

Mr Trump is planning to visit these shores on 24 June, according to some papersort I can't be bothered to link to from my cellphone.

That might make for an interesting sideshow as we nurture our collective Brexit hangover.

Do you honestly think that when push comes to shove, the British people will vote for Brexit, Kern?
Unless there's a genuine sea-change between now and the vote, I absolutely cannot see it. No way.

Normal people - i.e. the vast, silent majority, rather than vocal 'Twitterati' types, with their jobs, kids, mortgages and pensions to protect - they're just not going to go for this. They really aren't.
Trump, though, well that's a different matter, as I've said all along. I actually think he'll be President, heavens help us.

No, but it's a fun thing to scare the children with.

Indeed it is...

The polls have been moving towards Leave for some time now. It's possible that sea-change is happening, right now.


The "Twitterati" types all want to stay in the EU.

Depends what you mean by Twitterati. The echo chamber effect of Twitter means that what you see is entirely dependent on the network you build - which you know all too well. So I'm sure there's as many vocal brexiters on Twitter as there are vocal remainers - but they're different pools in the twitter leisure centre. Wow. That was a tortured analogy.

Mmmm. Whilst that's true, I think there's legitimately a lot more left-leaning types on Twitter than right-leaning. I vaguely recall Actual Data to that effect, although I can't locate it just now.

Well, Ladbrokes reckon there's a 75% chance remain/25% chance leave

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/sports-cent ... eferendum/

Okay, not massively scientific, but they do have their money where their mouth is, I guess.

I think we'll be out but I really really hope we stay.

Because of how bookies work -- they mostly set odds in reaction to the bets being laid -- they can lag behind reality. Wait and see if it shifts in the next two weeks, I suppose.

Notably, bookies were offering decent odds against a Conservative majority ("William Hill was offering odds of 10/1 on Thursday night on the Conservatives having a majority") until the day before the last General Election (although there, admittedly, the polls got it wrong too.)

I've not been giving the election expenses investigations as much attention as it might warrant (mostly because they are still just investigations but also because we're all engaged in a festival of democracy and high-level political debate right now), but Channel 4 News has a useful overview of the various allegations.

29 winning Tory MPs implicated? With a 17-seat Tory majority? I suppose it's not likely to go that far but it'd be amusing if we lost the entire government over this!

I used to keep count of John Major's majority as Tory MPs died or resigned. Happy days.

"Different pools in the Twitter leisure centre"

And people wonder why they can't monetise it successfully.

Even if every MP was made to resign that's not to say that a by-election wouldn't re-elect a Tory though.

Or would the loss of a majority means a need for a full general election?

Actually, the polls didn't get it wrong - YouGov didn't add them up right.

The polls we ran weren't that far out at all SMUG DIMLIE

[edit]Wait, we have a smug dimlie!

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, if the government loses a no-confidence vote there's a grace period of two weeks for a new (or the current) administration to win a subsequent confidence vote before elections are called.

Aren't there multiple polling firms? I recall all of them pointing towards a Lab/SNP coalition or similar.

Sure, but people tend to ignore the results from them - YouGov would be by far the biggest, and if they say something different to all the little folk you would be smart to trust them.

I mean, not in this case, but still.

Yeah, but that was before that poster. You know, the one with Salmond having Millipede in his top pocket - came out only a week or so before the actual election IIRC? It sent a positively glacial shiver down Middle England's spine.
Say what you like about the Tories, but by heck, they are media-savvy when it counts. This was an absolute game-changer; bless the SNP's wee tartan socks! Their hatred for Labour, even when already utterly demolished in Scotland/job already done, what with their incursion into English affairs with all that last minute, big talk of "no more SNP not voting on English matters" and "supply of confidence" with a minority Labour government, it was Salmond's "we're alright!!" moment... all they had to do was keep schtum, show a bit of mature, demure charm... it was in the bag and theirs for the taking... but of course, they just couldn't resist. Let's face it, few things in politics are as reliable as Salmond's planet-sized ego, or the SNP just being plain old diametrically wrong about stuff generally - and most especially in terms of a complete dearth of political acumen on their part. Bless.
'Victories' don't come more Pyrrhic or bitter-tasting...

Talking of laughable incompetence, all this was about the same time as Labour's genius last-minute "Ed Stone" ad. Man, how I LOLed at that; defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, then. (Or at least, a hung Parliament with Labour being more or less the governing party, much like the Tories were with the LibDems previous term).

The polls got it wrong for sure (though certain individuals read it right, eh ), but to be fair to them they can't (generally) react quickly enough to relative last-minute developments/abject media cock ups like this? It's like I always say - responding to meaningless polls is easy, but when push comes to shove, when people are standing in the polling booth and the shit's actually real, they're not going to leap into the unknown and/or countermand REAL fears for their jobs, security, pensions or whatever unless the offer is really good, or at least appears to be so. That's how it'll go with Brexit, too; we aren't going anywhere. The case for leaving, as presented (and thus far), is nowhere near compelling enough, or good enough. (Plus Farage and Johnson... too many clowns, not enough boring grey-suited bank manager types to fill the credibility gap).

I think a regional breakdown and a demographic breakdown of IN/OUT could be interesting reading.

There are likely to be some areas massively going for OUT, I reckon, against a general murmur of IN. The only problem for IN is that the traditional voters (old people) are also often OUT voters.

I still think and hope IN carries the day, but I fear it will be close.

It also amuses me to see Farage et al stating what the policies will be when we leave. Mate, you've failed to become an MP, like, seven times. You aren't deciding SHIT, even if you win this one.

Yeah, agreed, but personally I don't think it'll be as close as you fear. ~55/45 IN? (i.e. ~10 points clear for IN; a smidge less than the Unionist victory in the Scottish Indyref but still decisive)
It's even funnier seeing them promising a whole bunch of extra public spending, when just about every single fiscal assessment and analysis points to further shortfall and austerity as a direct result of a Brexit. Like, wtf? The stupid and wilfully ill-informed will still take it all in their stride and believe it, though, as we've seen before of course.

Still, that's politics these days I guess - especially where matters of Nationalism are concerned. Facts are, increasingly, an annoying, inconvenient distraction to be ignored and treated with contempt, to be supplanted by meme-parroting bollocks (e.g. "SNPBAAAAAAAAAD" in response to pretty much any criticism), crass cherry-picking, propaganda for the stupid and gullible. Vapid half-truths and soundbites all win the day over any semblance of detailed, honest, impartial and grownup political debate, or quality discussion - which is in any event largely precluded by the increasing polarisation and "othering" of such debates in the first place, by the usual fomenters, with their usual vested interests/petty grievances.

It's almost enough to make me miss the bad old days of the 1970s when I was growing up; at least people seemed a darn sight more concerned, educated and informed back then, from what I can remember.

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"

More, I think it's referendums. It's insane to think that the populous has a deep enough grasp of the complexities of such a massive issue as this to be able to properly decide it one way or another. Also, the detailed information you'd need to work out which would be the right decision is bloody boring. So what you get instead is nothing but propaganda. Soap opera politics. Referendums are a fucking ludicrous idea.

Hear, hear

It really goes against the grain for me, Cras, as I love (in principle) the idea of as much democractic empowerment of the electorate as ever possible, as no doubt you and pretty much everyone else here does too - but yeah, the empirical reality of referenda does appear to be as you suggest, for the reasons you also suggest.

Expecting people to be arsed to educate themselves and be better versed in the issues at stake before voting, and to see beyond being duped by the noisy, entirely self-interested and partial purveyors of said idiotic propaganda and parroted memes etc., is a pure Utopian ideal, sadly.

Have a referendum on things that affect us, sure, like whether we want to drive on the left or the right, or whether to keep a permanent BST, or to allow Sunday opening hours, but not fucking world economics.

Except that the EU has always been far more of a political project rather than an economic one. As such, big constitutional questions about 'who governs?' should be with the people. I don't think for one moment that we've seen the end of the line when it comes to closer integration, although as was pointed out at a public meeting I went to last night any further changes if we stay in will require a referendum under the 2011 Act.

Yeah, the last thing anyone should want is a Swiss style 'direct democracy' with referendums constantly if you look at it operates in practice. The solution is to instead make the system of representative democracy more representative, which of course there is plenty of scope for improvement in regards to how our country is currently run.

I have a problem when I read arguments for changing The System. I can never help but feel what is driving the want for such a change isn't a more level playing field for all, but to alter the rules to obtain a more palatable result for those wanting change.

The Lib Dems did this last term, looking to improve their position (at the cost of tuition fees) and I'm pleased it failed. Where PR does exist, many find the results equally awful, with UKIP being MEPs.

UKIP got 12.6% of the vote and holds 0.16% of parliamentary seats. I don't agree with its policies at all, but I still think that's a scandal.

Anyway: I don't think you can take the popular vote in the last GE, map it to PR, and assume that's the parliament we'd end up with. If we had PR, campaigns would be fought differently (no more swing/safe seats) and many people would vote differently (there'd be far more value in voting if you live in a safe seat for a party you disagree with.)

Labour lost their enthusiasm for electoral reform once they got that 179 seat majority.

With increasing devolution, we do need a proper constitutional overhaul to rebalance the system, and not just continue the tweaking and muddling to stave off crises that has served us well since 1688. I just fear that a proper convention would become the biggest honeypot for every pressure group everywhere and we'd end up with a lengthy, overly complex book that we spend every minute in the courts arguing over.

To lay my cards on the table: for the Commons, STV is preferred but I'd be content with a mixed-member system. The Upper House needs reforming, but I don't think that can be done in isolation - the question should be 'what should Parliament be doing', not 'who should sit in the Lords'.

Clearly, any system - FPTP, AV or PR - all have their pros and cons. I totally get Doc's point about UKIP's democratic deficit, but for me, the prospect of PR and endless paralysed, hand-wringing, horse-trading unstable rainbow coalitions such as those of the Continent (Italy and Greece spring to mind) fill me with dread. I'm also decidedly un-bothered about giving the extremist fringes a democratic voice; FTP at least ensures they never get enough traction, so eventually wither. So, no thanks; I'll take FPTP and all its many imperfections. Seems to have served us reasonably well these last few centuries.

Judging from the AV referendum, most people agree with my sentiments and/or can't even be arsed to vote either way. Gallic shrugs all round, then.

Old Sarum probably needed those two MPs, after all.

You're pretty much wrong here. Even in my lefty safe space echo chamber most people recognised UKIP would get more representation under PR but still wanted it anyway as it is much fairer.

You can always introduce a 5% rule like that used in Germany* to keep out the most minor parties.


*5% or three constituency seats

And surely 'Germany' is the answer in general to worries about PR? As in - the idea that PR leads to paralysis etc. is disproven by the countries who use it and succeed. Plus I remember a swathe of anti-FPTP articles which suggested only us and the failing PIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) used it.

I've never voted LibDem in my life. And I didn't just imply PR, of which I realise there are better and worse variants of, STV being the most transparent and democratic. I meant a wider reform of the system, e.g. an elected second chamber, shorter parliamentary terms in the Commons, perhaps even radical moves such as creating an unicameral parliament, or even full federalism. (Unfortunately having an elected head of state is probably out of question in this country.)


Except "unstable rainbow coalitions" are a rare if nonexistent thing even in the countries you have mentioned. Italy currently has a grand coalition of sorts (the centre-left Democratic Party supported by smaller centre-right parties) that has lasted going on three and half years. Before it, Berlusconi had a stable majority and would've lasted his term easily if not for the financial crisis. Italy if anything had very stable governments - the Democrazia Cristiana was the largest party and governed from 1948 until 1994 until it imploded, which of course caused many problems, but was unrelated to the voting systems. Also, Greece in fact has had exclusively single-party governments (lead by New Democracy or PASOK) until only a few years ago, when a ND-PASOK-DIMAR grand coalition was replaced by a SYRIZA-ANEL coalition.


Exactly. Germany disproves that massively, at state and federal level. The idea that PR = paralysis is complete bollocks, and is easily disproven from examples of many countries. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or lying to make a point, frankly.


Those countries haven't used FPTP in recent decades. However, Spain, Greece and Portugal had single-party governments until the recent crisis. Greece I've explained above; Portugal currently has a single-party government (lead by the Socialist Party) installed at the end of last year; Spain is holding a general election this month after a bizarre and unworkable electoral outcome last December overturned decades of having a straight two-party system.

"The Royal Navy’s fleet of six £1bn destroyers is breaking down because the ships’ engines cannot cope with the warm waters of the Gulf, defence chiefs have admitted."

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

If I were Spain, now'd be the time to go for the Rock.

Good old public sector procurement and contract management eh; nice to see they have their usual technical prowess. I wonder how many hundreds of millions pounds of SMEs' sweating bullets and blood tax money this latest abject fuck up will cost to put their stupid, pointless toy ships right, kidding themselves we're still a world power?

Time was I used to get so pissed off with stuff like this but now I just shrug my shoulders and write five figure cheques to the exchequer every 3 months. Labour, Tory, it's still the same chocolate teapot civil servants "managing" this stuff, right? It's not like they're ever getting any better, so no point bursting a blood vessel; warship engine, NHS IT system, parliament building... It's all the same and it will always ever be thus. A sort of inverse Midas Touch, where everything (very expensively) turns to rat shit, no one is ever accountable and it's never anyone's fault.

PFE has never been anything but a horrific nightmare - I don't understand how hard it is to write even-handed contracts.

Madras Touch

It's not hard, but you've got to have-a-clue. My 6 year old grandson would find it hard; a competent, experienced QS, Lawyer and technical department sporting a few good Marine Engineers less so. There are, no doubt, copious template and form of contract documents available.

Seriously, can you imagine how many useless talking shop meetings they had on this multi billion pound project; all those buzzwords, memos, bullshit power point presentations, mind maps and all the rest that they doubtless very expensively indulged in (all on our fee clock, natch), all those gallons of tea, coffee and mineral water, all those crisps and fancy butties - and in all that time no one thought to question seawater ambient temperature range and capability? Utterly unbelievable, even by their standards. I simply despair.

Sack them all.