So...Brexit.

[s_stabeler]

he's... not entirely wrong. Oh, the Leave campaign deserve to face the consequences of what they campaigned to achieve, but the Remain campaign was also badly mishandled. ( the problem basically is that the Remain campaign only ever said "the Leave campaign is wrong" and so never actually set out the advantages of staying in the EU.)

Frankly, what i'm excited to see is there being some fairly historic moments. ( the Labour Whips seem to be all but joining the growing rebellion against Corbyn- that's historic because traditionally, the whips are more-or-less the party "enforcers"- they cajole/force MPs to vote the party line. Then abandoning the party leader is unheard of) It's not impossible that we'll see politicians actually held to account for their actions- it may well be that at last, people start voting based on what politicians actually do. That could mean MPs becoming more independent-minded, which is actually a good thing. ( when MPs often don't even bother turning up for most debates, then parliamentary democracy suffers because the issue isn't properly debated. If passing legislation required steering it through lively debate where it was actually questioned properly, we should see far less ill-thought-out legislation)

[Gravekeeper]

he's... not entirely wrong. Oh, the Leave campaign deserve to face the consequences of what they campaigned to achieve, but the Remain campaign was also badly mishandled. ( the problem basically is that the Remain campaign only ever said "the Leave campaign is wrong" and so never actually set out the advantages of staying in the EU.)

Thats not what Boris was getting at. He, weirdly, seems to be blaming the post Brexit panic on Remain, the government in general and the Tories in particular for not toting the wondrous advantages of Brexit and the glorious future that awaits everyone.

Everyone's fault but his own in otherwords.

[XCashier]

Thought you might find the most recent This Modern World cartoon amusing.

[Rapscallion]

Some of the fallout politically is interesting.

With Cameron going, we've got a significant scramble up the greasy pole by four or five who have yet to learn the lessons of history and are eager to be on the top. The most likely candidate to win thus far is Theresa May, who hails from the Thatcher mould, and is quoted as saying that we should leave the EU human rights legislation behind us (that's comforting). The least worst of the bunch is Stephen Crab, on record as saying that homosexuality is a disease and can be cured - but at least he's not a public schoolboy. Gove is basically Lord Toede from Dragonlance in human form. ("I did everything I could to avoid standing for party leader..." other than actually not standing for it).

On the labour side, from my perspective it seems that the public schoolboys (bit of a theme) are trying to kill off the old-style politician who's actually honest and principled, instead of being a tory-light. He won convincingly against three Blair-types who were mostly campaigning on 'any of us as long as it's not him' and they're trying to get rid of him at any cost, even the survival of their party. Also, the average member of the party is not overly happy at this. I'd be interested in seeing how many would go with the new Labour party if they splintered off to get rid of left-leaning politicians. I suspect not many, because there's only so many pre-speech briefings, spin doctors, and slick salesmanship you can stomach before it sticks in your craw. Also, public schoolboys.

I'm more or less sitting back and watching with interest, but trying not to make eye contact.

As for other places, I have an account on Quora and am regularly finding myself answering the same questions time and again from people who don't understand how a search function works.

Rapscallion

[s_stabeler]

the issue with Corbyn is he enforces Party discipline a little too strictly. He lost a LOT of support among more independent voters when he didn't curtail his supporters from harassing MPs that were planning to vote for airstrikes in Syria. (it's not the pacifism as such that is the issue- though that doesn't help- it's that his opponents were actively harassed ( I'm talking about the various threats of violence to MPs.) with Corbyn at the very least, refusing to condemn the actions of his supporters, and some comments implied endorsing them)

I happen to agree that it's good that Corbyn sticks to his principles- however, some of what he apparently feels is justified in furthering those principles goes too far.

[Rapscallion]

Political fallout in the UK's political parties continues.

Theresa 'I decide who gets human rights' May is the Prime Minister Presumptive as everyone else has dropped out. That's the tories, so we know what's going on there, though quite frankly they're in disarray.

As for Labour, dearie me. Corbyn may resort to legal action to be included on the list of candidates during the leadership challenge. Essentially, the grassroots of the party want him, but the MPs are doing their level best to oust someone who is popular and appears honest. He might seem to you to have enforced his discipline, but he had a major remit from the voting membership and there's more of them than there are of MPs).

His main contender, Angela Eagle, is not as natural a crowd pleaser in my experience, and today was left wondering where the reporters had gone to when they got wind that the only opposition to Therea May's bid for premiership had withdrawn.

In the late seventies and early eighties, the really far left of that party made them unelectable, and now the right wing of that party are doing the same. It's fascinating and horrible at the same time. The country needs an effective opposition and they're more concentrating on murdering each other politically.

Rapscallion

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

oust someone who is popular and appears honest.

That's probably because that is the universal calling card of the populist politician. They're disliked in political circles because either they're in fact not honest and thus they come across as hypocritical to their peers, or they are in fact honest which tends to invariably end up in in someone that alienates a lot of people (they lack the grease necessary to work across/within parties) or if they're really successful results in a politician that often exercises disproportional power through populist clout.

I think any party that has a liberal wing is always vulnerable. Not because they are bad, but because as a voting bloc they tend to need to fall in love to vote. And that always leaves the moderates and wing in a state of constant fighting. Conservatives (from a voting perspective) tend to have more of a "get in line" mentality. They survive having ultra-conservative-to-moderate swings more easily.

[s_stabeler]

Corbyn was elected because people were fed up with candidates that seemed to practically be the last one rebadged. The trouble is that he was elected specifically because he had no ties to the Establishmment. Unfortunately, that tends to mean a politician that tends towards the fringes of the party, since more moderate politicians tend to become part of the establishment.

Really, what we''re seeing is a symptom of the collapse in trust in politicians that's been occurring for years. In a sense, the root of the problem is when politics became more about mud-slinging against the PM than debating the actual legislation at issue. For example, the farce of an EU referendum when neither side actually set out a detailed vision for what would happen post-referendum.

[Rapscallion]

Oh boy. Boris Johnson has been appointed as foreign secretary for the UK, or what will be left of it.

He had a chance to turn it down and didn't.

Oh boy.

Rapscallion

[mjr]

Really, what we''re seeing is a symptom of the collapse in trust in politicians that's been occurring for years.

Same thing for the U.S.

If you look at "approval" numbers for Congress as a whole, they generally hover in the low to mid teens, regardless of who the President is. But if you look at Congressional approval on an individual level, each Congress member is generally polling at close to 60%.

So nothing really changes until people get REALLY fed up. For instance, in the Congressional district where I live, the Representative has been in office since I was a kid (he got elected in 1984, when I was 8 years old). I turn 40 in October.

Part of the reason is because he generally runs unchallenged, and when he does get challenged, opponents in the same party (during primaries) have difficulty raising money and getting the word out that they're actually running. You have to actively look for them, and even if you do get to the ballot box, voting is generally "the known" vs "the unknown", as far as candidates go. And since I live in a staunchly Republican area, it's unlikely a Democrat will unseat him any time soon.

[s_stabeler]

it doesn't help that opponents of those in power are often "meet the new boss- same as the old boss" considering that neither party are actually particularly par from the other politically overall.(seriously. the ACA is based on republicans ideas for heathcare reform. A lot of the criticism of the ACA is blown up simply due to it being proposed by the democrats. ( do an opinion poll asking about individual parts of the ACA, and there is majority support. do an opinion poll for the ACA, and there is not majority support.)

The main difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans- I'm talking candidates here- tend to appeal to the extremes, and treat compromise as "you do what I want instead of what you want"(that's aside from making a political issue out of it when a Democrat does something wrong that they also did on a wider scale.(yes, I'm referring to the email controversy. while Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server, the Republicans did ti for everyone- and specifically used the email server to hide emails.)

[Rapscallion]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7137056.html

Boris Johnson said that the Brexit referendum doesn't mean 'in any sense leaving Yurp'.

The fuck?

Rapscallion

[mjr]

it doesn't help that opponents of those in power are often "meet the new boss- same as the old boss" considering that neither party are actually particularly par from the other politically overall.

This is why some people argue that control of Congress is more important than the Presidency. But I think there are enough differences between the parties that it seems to matter -- at least on the surface.

But it's also why I advocate that the U.S. should have some sort of term limit established for Congress, or do a "wipe the slate clean" sort of thing, where Congress is "turned over" every so often. I think it could be done while still doing the "staggered" Senate elections (since the Senate serves six terms, and there are elections for one third of the senate every two years). I lean toward a term limit. I think I've discussed my thoughts on that before on this forum.

Another part of the problem, I think, is that people aren't informed enough, and don't care enough to actually do something about it. There are a lot of good people who probably don't want to run for office because of the nastiness of the election season, or they figure they can't raise enough money to run against an established candidate, anyway.

It's a "culture" problem, I think.

[TheHuckster]

Boris Johnson said that the Brexit referendum doesn't mean 'in any sense leaving Yurp'.

The fuck?

Well, I guess in the sense that they aren't demolishing the Chunnel and finding ways to lift the islands up out of the sea and moving it 2000 miles south, that's true.

[EricKei]

<unlurks to go get some more >

CGP Grey just chimed in this morning. Enjoy.

<relurks>