Theresa May Loses Overall Majority In UK Parliament (cnn.com) 493
Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain has lost her overall majority in Parliament on Thursday, plunging Britain into a period of renewed political chaos less than two weeks before it is scheduled to begin negotiations over withdrawing from the European Union. While May's Conservative party won the most seats, the party didn't win enough to govern without the support of minority parties. CNN reports: It was devastating result for May, who had called the election three years earlier than required by law, convinced by opinion polls that placed her far ahead of opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The result also plunges Britain into a period of renewed political chaos, with Brexit talks likely to be delayed and May's personal authority shredded. There was already talk in Conservative circles that she might have to resign, less than a year after taking over from David Cameron, who resigned following the Brexit referendum. The pound fell on currency markets in the wake of the results. After the result was declared in her constituency of Maidenhead, May gave a faltering speech. "At this time more than anything else, this country needs a period of stability," she said, suggesting she would attempt to form a government even if her party loses its majority. Corbyn said the early results showed May had lost her mandate and called for her to resign. Further reading: New York Times
Bye Theresa (Score:5, Insightful)
Weak and wobbly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw you, May! Your cheapass manipulations of the voting public didn't work.
I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.
Re:Bye Theresa (Score:5, Informative)
Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.
They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be claiming to see into the future. That can't be right...
Re:Bye Theresa (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually most Lib Dems voted Labour for this election because it was more important to stop the right wing conservatives "hard brexit" and austerity. Also the current Lib Dem leader is not very appealing as a person being a bit of a religious fanatic in a party that does not believe religion should be in politics. The tuition fees thing is something they had no choice about as the cost of what they were able to achieve as part of the last coalition.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Tim Farron was telling people to vote tactically. I guess he figured it would help the Lib Dems as much as anyone else.
Re:Bye Theresa (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony of course is that the DUP (who the Tories will tempt into bed with them) have a long history of religious lunacy that makes Tim Farron (Lib Dem leader) look like Richard Dawkins in comparison.
They have recent history of appointing young earth creationists, being vehemently anti-gay and climate change deniers (why worry when God'll sort it out).
Ho-hum :(
Re: (Score:3)
And that's why their supporters are idiots.
Labor gave us fees and barely stood in the way of brexit
The Tories gave us huge fees and brexit
The lib dems didn't stand in the way of fees and did stand against brexit
But apparently they're the worst?
No party ever sticks to all it's promises because reality. The lib dems were a small part of a coalition. This continual hate is just barking mad especially given the competition.
Re:Bye Theresa (Score:4, Insightful)
ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.
Re:Bye Theresa (Score:5, Insightful)
ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.
That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.
The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).
That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum. Brexit was and is a monumental decision and you need to require there to be a clear mandate for whoever gets stiffed with implementing such a decision. Otherwise that person cannot be expected do their job effectively. What AC describes, however, is the kind of lukewarm one foot through the door, I want full access to the club facilities but making me pay a membership fee is an assault on my human rights, attitude that brought us Farage, Wilders, Le Pen in the first place. Ironically the clusterfuck that Brexit and British politics has become is actually helping the EU along whit the fact that Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and their ilk held Donald Trump up as an example to follow and now that he has turned out to be a human shitsandwich European voters, who seem to generally be a bit quicker spot a turd than some American voters seem to be, are not having any of it. People in the rest of the EU27 take one look at the UK and think 'Wat? Do I want a slice of shit cake? Ummm... no thanks'. From now on people are just going to have to make up their minds whether they want to *exit or stay in the EU and fight for reforms. There are no other choices.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum.
The reason it should have been a super majority was much simpler than what you laid out. The UK gave their leaders a super majority in 1975 to join the common market, and it should have required another super majority to leave. The vote which took place in 2016 was a very clear signal there was not a strong mandate for any particular method of leaving the EU. It essentially broke down to roughly 48% stay, 25% hard Brexit, 15% soft Brexit, 12% I'm just grumpy. How that was misconstrued to a clear desire of t
Super majority to join?? (Score:3)
So mr know it all...
Perhaps you would like to point out when the super majority to join the EU was given?
Of course you know that there was not even a majority, because there was no vote..
And no, the common market is very very different from the EU, and I am also sure you know.
None of which matters. The brexit vote was a vote of no confidence in politicians and there continual destruction of the middle class in favor of their own wealth and power, in the same way the Trump vote was.
Trying to gloss over that
Re: (Score:3)
Is is between a weak and a wobbly place now.
If she stays, she is too weak to be effective and forever tainted. Won't be an effective leader, and her own party will be forever trying to force her out. The DUP might not want to be associated with her failure.
If she goes, there will need to be a leadership contest and it is unlikely that the Tories could form a government. The DUP would need to support them, and that will be a hard sell if it isn't known who the leader is.
The Tories are pretty slippery though,
Re: (Score:2)
And whoever replaces her faces the same lack of credibility - not having won a General Election as party leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, although it doesn't seem to stop politicians. Whoever takes over will also be taking on the poison chalice...
I didn't think May would survive Brexit, but I really didn't expect her end to come by her own hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody in their right mind would want to tango with her now. It's like begging to be dragged down into the abyss with her.
So... (Score:2)
May may in May but she can't now it's June? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Kenny has only recently resigned as party leader and Taoseach (PM), so it might only be a temporary stay of execution. But May could dig in, form a coalition, or a memorandum of understanding and still lead at least
Don't you think she looks tired? (Score:2, Funny)
(n/c)
Re: (Score:2)
I think she looks miserable. Maybe just take her back behind the house and put her out of her misery, she's just torturing herself.
And, more importantly, us.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't rejoice yet. The Tories are still the largest party and judging by her (lack of) character she sees this as an endorsement of her politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Then she'll get the support of the aristocracy by making fox hunting not only a sport but a duty for national safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the plans of both sides, the less they can actually do something the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What problem? The terrorist attacks aren't a bug, they're a feature, how else do you convince a population that you can take away their rights if you don't terrorize them first?
Why do you think she cut police force left and right while she was responsible for it? A sizable police force could easily have squashed any fledgling terror groups before they could be useful for her.
Re: Bye Theresa (Score:5, Insightful)
If you lurk 4chan, you'll find that support for May ended the second she started talking about internet censorship and regulation. May instantly went from being the alt-right's "Mummy" to being a rejected politician whom even the cesspit of the internet could not love. May fucked up big-time when she tried to capitalize on terror. The right wing of the native youth does not want its own freedom threatened: it wants security through ending immigration.
Re: Bye Theresa (Score:4, Funny)
"Canada will rise to be a superpower"
Lol, thx, that made me laugh.
What happened next? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What happened next? (Score:5, Insightful)
effectively means the government loses its authority to pass laws without support from other parties which
Yep which means they can't just plough ahead with their regularly scheduled strategy of hating everyone. I mean christ, cross party support! That's just awful, they'll have to consider what people in non Tory seats want. In other words they are going to have to learn to run the country for the voters not the tory party.
which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.
Whereas having one party simply riide roughshod over about half the population is a fine idea.
The Tories have proven they are not grown up enough to run the country. First by holding the referendum in the first place, then the farcical leadership contest and finally the election. No way in hell I want them to have yet another crack at fucking things up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tory back benchers have a lot to answer for. Screwed up Major's government over Europe, forced Cameron into that disastrous, career-ending referendum and have now done the same to May. Not to mention the effect on the country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the buck clearly stops with May herself this time. This was a shameless attempt at an opportunistic power grab by a PM no-one voted for. It was presented deceptively as a matter of strengthening her hand in the Brexit negotiations, yet the Tory manifesto sneaked in numerous "nasty party" policy changes relative to the previous one, some of which were barely even picked up by the media before the election. And of course the Tory campaign was all about her.
I wonder how long she'll last running a minor
Re: (Score:2)
It's all a May (the PM) plot to trigger a hard brexit.
Trigger article 50. Wait a bit.
Call an election - May says cannot negotiate until after the election.
TM waits for a bit and only when it's obvious she cannot govern the Tory party, let alone the country (or possibly at 10am BST today)...
Call another tory leadership context - cannot negotiate until after the new prime minister is selected
Boris fails to negotiate for a couple of months. Then calls an election for a couple of months hence - says cannot nego
Re:What happened next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree that May expected a better majority. But that doesn't mean that she was going to be able to govern her own party. She called this election because she couldn't manage the party and hoped that with a few more Tory MPs she might have enough support of her own party to utter more tautologies: "brexit means brexit", "enough is enough".
When the election was called I expected her to get a bigger majority and it to be six months of failed negotiations and backstabbing from her backbenchers before she w
Re: (Score:2)
"The Thick of It" with a string of fuckups over trivia was starting to look a lot like a documentary.
Re: (Score:3)
This game is called passing the hot potato.
Music stops 2019-03-29. Whoever holds the office of PM on that day loses.
Re:What happened next? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure about this. What I can see here is that people were promised wonders over wonders if Brexit happens, that their health insurance gets better, that jobs come back, that foreigners leave, basically that unicorns come and shit rainbows all across the sky.
Guess what. Didn't happen. People are pissed.
Because people neither want Brexit nor staying. They don't give a fuck either way. They want whatever gives them more handouts, and they now want to get what they were promised. And of course that's not going to happen.
May, in her infinite wisdom, jumped full-bore onto the Brexit train once it was running and did what we have seen as the success story of German chancellor Merkel: She has no idea where things are going to go, so she waits for the masses to move, and as soon as they move in a direction, she runs past them and yells "follow me!".
That works if the masses still want what they thought they wanted when you yell "follow me!". Unfortunately for May (and fortunately for the rest of the world), by the time May yelled "follow me!" people already noticed that they were given empty promises and are now pissed. Especially at a PM that claims she doesn't want a Brexit while they want it, and now that they are no longer so fond of the idea tries hard to push it with all her might.
She tried to copy Merkel. She failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
The likeliest outcome is a coalition with the DUP [bbc.com] (ten seats), which will seek a "seamless and frictionless" Irish border. That will get the Conservatives a slim majority.
Re:What happened next? (Score:4, Informative)
48% do NOT want Brexit. the other 52% want Brexit but cannot agree on how and what sort of Brexit they want.
This is the crap the UK gets without a plan, without a vision and without agreement.
Re:What happened next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the plan was that the Brexit vote fails. Like the US had no plan for when Trump becomes president, they had no plan for a Brexit vote success.
You don't plan for the impossible, do you?
Re:What happened next? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the crap you get when you hold referendums where one side feels at liberty to simply lie to win.
Re: (Score:3)
DUP ireland (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives plus DUP will have a working majority for most things. DUP will want some kickbacks.
But I think DUP is soft brexit (or no brexit) so for the single most important issue facing the UK the prime minister won't be able to play the "no deal" card (hence my other post about the Tories trying to play out the clock to get a hard brexit)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the option for Labour to form a minority government? That seems more workable, with Corbyn being someone who can find common ground and bring people together. In fact, just having a clear idea of who the leader will be is a big advantage - the Tories can't say if it will be May or if there will be a leadership contest.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely no chance.
Apart from the fact that Tory+DUP have 326 seats now which three seats still to declare.
Even if DUP refuses to support Tory, they'd never support Lab either so Labs best chance would be to win a no confidence vote and trigger yet another election (but that might not do what they want if their support is pro-europe and they see it as yet more delaying with no sight of anything other than a hard brexit looming)
Re: (Score:2)
If the DUP doesn't support the Tories then all they can do is obstruct the entire parliament, which won't look good for them either. Plus, maybe Sinn Fein can be convinced to support the progressive alliance if it means they get a border poll a few years down the line.
The DUP might support the Tories, but they want a soft Brexit with single market access and a soft border so something drastic will have to be worked out. Hopefully they won't fall for the same bullshit that the Lib Dems did in 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire source of the problem is the 1922 Committee and other hard right Tory factions who have been the bane of Tory leaders since the 1970s. Sooner or later they were going to force a Tory leaders to make an EU referendum a part of their manifesto.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing into the abyss? (Score:2)
I'm just wondering if much of electorate that placed these people in power have gazed into the abyss of populism and seen that darkness ahead. I certainly hope so because there is still time to set things right in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe UK people just vote "against" rather than "for" like they do in many parts of the world. Case in point, the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's very much the case in this election. My constituency - which would elect a sex-offender if you put a blue* rosette - normally has the Lib Dems as runners up with Labour in 3rd. This time it was Tory, Labour, LD (60%, 20%, 15%). For the first time I saw a good few "Vote Labour" posters in Windows in my town, so I think they played the "Vote Tactically" game well.
* Blue = Tory, Red = Labour
Re: (Score:3)
An election was held, people voted, the count will see a conservative and DUP government.
If another party presents some good ideas next election they might win.
If a political party wants to win, find a politician who can win and get the full support of a political party.
Voters usually like a good leader who can speak well and who has good ideas.
If a party is split and a leader has issues they often don't win.
Re: (Score:3)
Voters usually like a good leader who can speak well and who has good ideas.
That's true but they prefer charismatic figures that validate their biases.
Should couldn't even ... (Score:5, Informative)
... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.
Weak leadership.
Re:Should couldn't even ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.
Weak leadership.
What's worse is that having been the one who called the election in the first place she gave the excuse that "there wasn't time for her to participate with the election because of the brexit business". She only just fell short of saying "What idiot called an election at this time?".
There's a saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Tories have played stupid games in the last two elections they called for. They've won stupid prizes as a result.
"Tear up" human rights? (Score:2, Informative)
Didn't we just have an article where Theresa May vowed to "tear up" human rights to combat terrorism?
Hung government notwithstanding, getting rid of her is a good thing, right?
Re: (Score:3)
That was precisely my first thought when I saw this story. Apparently the UK does value human rights after all.
How the Scots can F the Brits (Score:5, Insightful)
If the SNP would agree to form a coalition with the conservatives, on the single condition that they can leave the UK and stay in the EU, they can get their independence.
It will give the British and Welsh people what they voted for, and I think soon will regret.
And it will not be their problem anymore.
The Scots voted in 2014 only to stay in the UK, because leaving the UK would have meant leaving the EU.
And in 2016 they voted mainly to remain, as they did not want to leave the EU.
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Said it before (Score:5, Interesting)
Brexit isn't a foregone conclusion. It's also two years of negotiations. There should also be negotiations to stay. At the end of the negotiations there should be another referendum or maybe even two or three until there is a significant majority.
Chief among issues is immigration. Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders. Furthermore the richer nations really do need to contribute more for the border protection in the eastern nations.
There is also opportunity to change the current way the EU does business (high handed) specifically in it's regulations and how nations might choose to opt out. The way I see it "most" regulations should take 10 or more years or say three elections so that opposition can be organized to reverse course.
Furthermore banking needs to change. Stop the bailouts that make certain people rich. Just declare bankruptcy already and get good people into Greece and Italy to rebuild something sane. Bankruptcy should always be on the table and almost automatic to insure that the people investing money are doing so on sound business principles rather than just a promise from the EU to guarantee their money.
Re:Said it before (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU needs fewer opt-outs, not more. The whole point of the single market, which is essential for truly free trade, is that no member state has an unfair advantage. The only reason people ever want opt-outs is to get an advantage.
That's why the UK is doomed in the Brexit negotiations. The UK seems to think that it can get some kind of special deal where it gives its industries huge advantages over the EU, but clearly the EU is never going to accept that and will offset the advantage with tariffs.
Social care nailed her. (Score:5, Insightful)
Brexit will be walked back (Score:3)
Mark my words, Brexit will eventually be walked back...EU will be OK with that.
Re: (Score:2)
But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?
Maybe /. has more UK than US readers
or maybe encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Theresa May wanted to have "back doors" in encryption schemes to allow government access and everyone with a clue laughed at her
she stood by the claims and this is what happens....
maybe next time a politician dreams of this we can remind them of how this turned out...
John Jones
Re:or maybe encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly I doubt this had much impact. It was all down to May being completely useless, demonstrating bad judgement and almost unbelievable weakness. She announced policies, and then days later was bullied into changing them.
That and Corbyn being actually really, really good.
actually (Score:2, Insightful)
Corbyn can not be described really really good since he did not even manage gordon brown level for labour seats... thats the reality
yes labour seats are up from before but if you start low then going up is easy,
your going to be dealing with the DUP being king/queen makers... good luck with that....
the point stands May made terrible mistakes and one of which was encryption
Re:actually (Score:5, Informative)
Corbyn got more votes for Labour than they have had since 1997. You can slice it any number of ways, but the fact is he took a 25 point deficit and reduced it to near zero.
Hopefully turmoil in the Tory party will prevent any kind of DUP deal, but I'm not optimistic. Like the Lib Dems, they may be unable to resist tasting a little bit of power. Like the Libs Dems, the Tories will screw them.
Re: (Score:3)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Do you really think they'll fall for it again?
Re:actually (Score:5, Informative)
Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.
Re:actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.
Corbyn got young people to vote which is a longstanding source of failure for the left and not just in the UK. For that alone he deserves a whole box of Cuban cigars. He also took a few leafs out of Donald Trump's book, held rallies and came up with a set of simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances. Meanwhile there was Theresa May talking about allowing fox hunting again (when 80% of the nation hates the idea because it stinks of aristocracy), being mean to old people, taking meals away from school kids and defunding the NHS so I think Theresa May's ivory tower view on the world didn't hurt Corbyn either.
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to her, even Trump looks competent.
Nah. lol.
Trump makes Bush look erudite and wise, and that takes some fucking doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.
But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?
About as much as US politics has... Just because _you_ aren't in the UK, it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to millions of other people.
Furthermore, the UK is one of the USA's closest allies, not that Agent Orange really gives two fucks about that.
Re: (Score:3)
If Europe still mattered,
Only an American could think the largest trading bloc in the world somehow doesn't matter. Europe as a bloc is economically more powerful than your country.
Re: (Score:3)
The strategic value of the UK to the US is twofold. First, it's pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't on the verge of giving the US the finger as soon as they can possibly get away with it, maybe with the exception of Poland. And second, if push comes to shove, it's fairly hard to invade England. Hasn't been done successfully for over a millennium now, and counting. It's fairly easy to defend an island.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'd say it goes under the 'stuff that matters' part of the slogan. As a European one of the reasons I like political stories on Slashdot, especially political stories from outisde the US is that it's interesting to read american commentary on these matters. I mean, I often do not agree but it doesn't matter, it gives me a perspective on the matters that I feel I do not get from simply reading something like CNN or other american news sources.
In case there are others who feel the same and for what it's worth here's my take on this topic: The British right has effectively sunk their own ship. The Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, but rather it was meant to be used as a PR-campaign for Farage and his ilk in preparation for the next eelctions. Pretty much everyone, on the right and the left, assumed people would vote remain. This lead to 2 things that started this cascade of clusterfucks:
1. The Brexit side felt they could make pretty much any claims they wanted. After all, they weren't actually going to win, so while they're at it might as well take it over the top for maximal visibility. Hence the absurd claims that by resigning they'd be able to pour hundreds of millions more into health care, or maintain complete control of their borders while still being free to trade with the Union like before, and so on.
2. The Remain side, equally convinced that they'd win easily - after all, who'd be stupid enough to fall for the extravagant hyperbole of the Brexit camp - did not do a solid campaign at all. Granted, I'm, not a Brit but I was left with the impression that they were totally unable to craft a message of their own, other than essentially trying to signal "leaving the Union would be bad for reasons X, Y and Z". This is when I knew they were screwed. You're essentially up against a populists wet dream: an popular vote where the other side gets to wrap themselves in a flag and talk about 'freedom'. That's really hard to counter, because the nuanced arguments about the benefits of a trade union are trumped by the idealistic talk.
These two effects combined were enough to tilt the scales and now they're left in a situation that no-one really wanted. The Brexit camp has mostly ran to the hills and scattered, realizing well ahead of time that they've scored a massive pyrrhic victory and that by the time the effects of a brexit hit they don't want to be anywhere near responsibilities. This leaves the political establishment in a weird spot, where the resignation process has to be overseen by people who didn't really want to resign in the first place. May, herself a remainer, looked at all of this and probably figured that since she lost to raging populist she might as well do a full u-turn and attempt to go 'full populist' to solidify support for the conservatives. So she adopted a hardline stance on Brexit where they're trying to strongarm the Union into giving them everything they want even though from a purely realpolitik/game theory point of view the UK is at a massive disadvantage in these negotiations, so trying to play hardball is an insanely stupid move. She also called the elections in an attempt to gather support for her newly found stance of 'brexit means brexit' and 'no deal is better than a bad deal' -stance.
However by this time most of Brittain seems to have realized how much they were in fact duped by the Brexit campaign. That indeed, the majority of the claims made by the campaign about the benefits of resigning are outright lies. Many are feeling remorseful, and indeed it seems based on the polls if the vote was held today Remain would win
What can we learn from this? Well, the number one issue to be learned is that putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move because people aren't really that well informed on complex matters like the role of the Union, which allows populists (from both sides) to essentially ma
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, but it typically just leads to smug and superior feelings IMHO because the people with more than half a clue are aware of their shortcomings - leaving an unrepresentive bunch of the politically naive spouting bullshit.
The relativism of thinking that everyone's opinion is equally informed has really soaked in there for some strange reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Some on the remain side took it seriously, like Corbyn. The problem was that his own party were too busy trying to sabotage him and so the press largely just ignored him and in fact the whole party.
The Leave side was made up of people with a vested interest in leaving (mostly those in business who wanted a bonfire of rights and regulations that affected their profits), and those who were just in it for themselves (Boris, Gove) and those who just wanted to watch the world burn for ideological reasons (Farage
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
As a British citizen, I have to agree with much of what you say, but let me offer a slightly different perspective, perhaps.
I think one of the main problems in British politics over the last several decades has been the way Labour deserted its natural core voters: the working class, in a wider sense - not just the traditional factory workers, but everybody in a simillar position in society; all us that are destined to be employees, basically, rather than business owners. Blair tried to widen the scope, but lost sight of the working class and became enamoured with what one can call 'neo-capitalism' (well, I'm trying to be kind - not sure if he really deserves it); that is not to say that it is impossible for Labour to appeal to those who don't traditionally feel they are 'working class' - I think it is very possible, but you have to persuade people to rethink their position in society and realise that it isn't somehow embarrassing to be working class. Corbyn's jaw-dropping, explosive rise shows us that a lot of people felt that so-called New Labour was a mistake, and that they do in fact want them to remember the old values and bring them in to the modern reality; I think Corbyn at least has the intellectual span to envision this, and if the party can unite behind him, they could pull it off.
The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman). The Tories, under David Cameron tried to re-invent themselves as 'nice, and in favour of social justice, but I think it never rang true, and you kept seeing the jeering, private-school raised bully through the varnish on a regular basis. They will form the next government, I'm sure, and they deserve it; if anybody deserves struggling with the mess of Brexit and the inevitable failures that will come off it, it is the Tories.
So here we are - fatefully moving towards Brexit, as if it was just unavoidable now; a very British kind of fatalism, I think. The truth is, of course, that we can halt this process at any time; we may have to eat humble pie and come back hat in hand, but of course we can. Just turn the idea around: if the remain side had won by such a slim majority, we would immediately have had the leavers shouting about how unfair it all was, and they would have been campaigning on and on now; so why should we just accept what is increasingly looking like a very bad idea with a heavy sigh? That simply does not make sense.
I have little doubt that we will come back - but next time, I hope the EU is a more ambitious union, not just a glorified market place with a few extra curls, but a full political union - a federal state or something like that.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly, but once we're out (and that does seem to be the way things are headed, for whatever form of "out" we end up with - fatalism or not), we're not going to be coming back in any time soon because of the required concessions, at least some of which will probably be needed with the "cap in hand, abort Article 50" approach too for that matter. When the UK joined the EU, we got a whole bunch of concessions because our economy was fucked and we needed them, although the EU also wanted us because they thought the likely UK recovery would ultimately benefit the EU and saying "no" to anyone would scupper the "One Federal Europe" vision they were starting to aim for.
Since then membership requirements have changed - things like adoption of the Euro, Schengen, and other things we are currently exempt from have been mandatory for many of the countries of the current EU, and there's no way ALL of those countries - and membership requires it to be "all" - are going to let the UK back in without the same commitments. Not to mention anything else they might add once they UK's repeated vetoing of anything that moves them closer to a Federal State gets cut loose. 48% might have voted Remain in the referendum, but that was on the assumption of maintaining the status quo; I can't see anything like that percentage of the current population agreeing to adopting the Euro and Schengen to get back in, no matter how screwed the economy/Sterling might be and how secure the EU might become from Islamic fundamentalism, which obviously isn't happening soon. We're currently just too sentimental about Sterling (even as we march towards a cashless economy and it becomes mostly moot), and too fearful over the relatively miniscule risk of being a victim of terrorism for that to happen.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.
But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?
Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.
Re: (Score:2)
Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.
But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?
Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.
Is she now? Tony did that 19 years ago actually...and did it quite good, so no point in repeating the exercise.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh crikey look at the whiny little snowflake.
The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors or whatever.
The loony left think that slashdot is dominated by the gun totin' racist,sexist, transphobic denialist rightwing nutjobs.
Has it possibly occurred to you that slashdot actually has a better spread than most places which makes it less of an echo chamber and more of a yelling chamber?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you suggest a better spread but this readership is like Marmite.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is the troll moderation on Slashdot. Obviously as one of the loony left I have no idea if other loonies are doing it to conservatives, but I'm certain that left leaning posts attract a lot of bad moderation designed to silence dissenting views.
I'll say it again - if the system was changed so that -1 mods counted for less when there also +1 mods, it would really help.
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Typical leftist, wanting to give out prizes for participating. And who will pay for these +mods? The taxpayer, that's who.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod point are a human right.
Re: (Score:3)
I kind of disagree. I get accused of being a part of the loony left more often than I get accused of being a right-wing nutjob, but I have been accused of both. I've also been accused of being a Mac fanboy, a Microsoft shill, and an open source militant. My general Slashdot experience is, some percentage of any viewpoint gets modded down. It doesn't really matter what position you take, there's going to be someone who doesn't like it, and if that person has mod points, you're going to get modded down.
H
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Seconded. I can always be guaranteed a good debate on Slashdot compared to most other media. It is the very fact that people with completely opposing views battle it out here that makes it worth the visit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot really is not extreme leftist. Certainly there's a strong sense of liberalism and libertarianism, but politically, users are fairly centrist, at least by European standards.
Re: (Score:3)
May is middle-of-the-road?
Holy fuck, that last earthquake really displaced a few things...
Re:Weak and wobbly indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Slahsdot is a hotbed of extreme leftists, and the defeat of a middle-of-the-road conservative makes them want to gloat in a venue they know will be kept as a blissful monoculture by moderation.
lol. Much triggered.
The dark hand of 'extreme leftism' at work here, folks.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Stay out of my business, I'll keep my nose out of yours, limited to where your business is to meddle with the business of someone else who doesn't want you to.
That's probably not the entire legal code, but a good start.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, the vast majority of Slashdotters are libertarian. Leave us alone and we well leave you alone.
Why do libertartians who are not anarchists imagine that the political system they create won't wind up just the same as the typical pattern we have now? Why do libertarians who are anarchists imagine that a power vacuum won't lead to another power structure?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have a link explaining why most parliamentary system governments don't have a fixed election cycle?
oh but most have, usually like 4 years.
britain isnt strictly democratic parliamentary system though, with fixed seats and shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, since 2010-ish, the UK does have a fixed, 5-year election cycle, designed to stop PMs calling snap elections at their party's convenience whenever they like what they're hearing in the opinion polls.
However, the legislation was drafted by politicians and thus has an "unless you really want to" clause, which is why we've just had a snap election called by the PM at her party's convenience because she liked what she was hearing in the opinion polls.
On the other hand, maybe the resulting debacle wi
Re: (Score:3)
You have that exactly backwards. A plurality is the largest party. A majority is a party with over 50% of the vote. The Tories have a plurality but no single party has a majority now.
Re: (Score:3)
I just want to know who was the weirdo in the yellow and black 'clown suit' standing behind Corbyn during one of his news conferences.
Probably the candidate for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party [omrlp.com]. Sadly, they weren't standing in my neck of the woods, because if you read their manifesto you'll see its the most consistent and coherent of the lot (E.g. "Atheism will be given charity status, being a non-prophet organization").
The constituencies for the main party leaders always attract half a dozen or so, er... alternative candidates.