How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

Never might be a ‘wee’ bit strong. If we look at recent history, then we can see that without Scotland, Labour would actually still have won in 1997, in 2001, and also in 2005. It’s less then about Labour ’never’ winning without Scotland and more about Labour not being able to win a sizeable majority again. Without the promise of Scottish seats, Labour therefore needs to win more seats in England which means it has had to move further to the right to appeal to English voters (hence the Brexit stance), but that makes it even less attractive in Scotland and upsets it’s traditional left in England and Wales. We can see the bind Starmer finds himself in now.

All of this means Labour needs to plan its future by envisaging a Westminster without Scottish seats and why, if it can form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament, it should legislate electoral reform. That change would make it more likely to be in government not less.
Labour pronised to look ar electoral reform in their 1997 manifesto, but then shelved it when they won a whopping majority and the upshot of that decision is that they’ve been out of power for 12 years, the daft cunts.
 
Last edited:
Never might be a ‘wee’ bit strong. If we look at recent history, then we can see that without Scotland, Labour would actually still have won in 1997, in 2001, and also in 2005. It’s less then about Labour ’never’ winning without Scotland and more about Labour not being able to win a sizeable majority again. Without the promise of Scottish seats, Labour therefore needs to win more seats in England which means it has had to move further to the right to appeal to English voters (hence the Brexit stance), but that makes it even less attractive in Scotland and upsets it’s traditional left in England and Wales. We can see the bind Starmer finds himself in now.

All of this means Labour needs to plan its future by envisaging a Westminster without Scottish seats and why, if it can form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the next Parliament, it should legislate electoral reform. That change would make it more likely to be in government not less.



Its why PR should be in the manifesto.
 
Labour pronised to look ar electoral reform in their 1997 manifesto, but then shelved it when they won a whopping majority and the upshot of that decision is thst they’ve been out of power for 12 years the daft cunts.
And the Liberal Democrats should have made legislating it a condition of their forming a coalition with the Conservatives in 2010, not having a referendum. In both cases, Labour and the Liberal Democrats were victims of their own hubris. They are blinded by the here and now and think their current success is somehow permanent.
 
Its why PR should be in the manifesto.
At most, Labour should say it will ‘look at electoral reform’ in its manifesto, and then when the Liberal Democrats make legislating it their price of forming a coalition, then Labour should agree. The Conservatives would be livid and have to move to the centre.
 




So we are entering phases 4 and 5 - Frantic search for the guilty and punishment of the innocent.


Looking for a false reason to beat up the civil service, which seems to be Mogg's sole goal now and will hamstring everyone from then on.

The civil service reportedly believe that the timescale to burn EU directives brings too much work for them to do well.
Mogg et al criticise them and threaten to cut the number of people doing the job, which will not help the review of EU laws.
The upshot will be bad replacements or gaping holes ripe for exploitation, without time for Parliament to review them properly.
 
Looking for a false reason to beat up the civil service, which seems to be Mogg's sole goal now and will hamstring everyone from then on.

The civil service reportedly believe that the timescale to burn EU directives brings too much work for them to do well.
Mogg et al criticise them and threaten to cut the number of people doing the job, which will not help the review of EU laws.
The upshot will be bad replacements or gaping holes ripe for exploitation, without time for Parliament to review them properly.
R-M and his backers need their policies rushing through without any scrutiny. I wonder who they will benefit?
 
R-M and his backers need their policies rushing through without any scrutiny. I wonder who they will benefit?

I think that's exactly their aim - benefitting a small cadre, and also creating an impossible mess for the next government, thus making it easier for the MailTelegraphExpress to promote another Conservative govt for more slash and burn.
 
Looking for a false reason to beat up the civil service, which seems to be Mogg's sole goal now and will hamstring everyone from then on.

The civil service reportedly believe that the timescale to burn EU directives brings too much work for them to do well.
Mogg et al criticise them and threaten to cut the number of people doing the job, which will not help the review of EU laws.
The upshot will be bad replacements or gaping holes ripe for exploitation, without time for Parliament to review them properly.
The Mandarins will also know that the next government will want to redo much of the work they are being asked to undertake so no point rushing things; would that they ever did. Sir Humphrey would simply give an insouciant shrug to Mogg’s request and seek to slow change even further.
 
The Mandarins will also know that the next government will want to redo much of the work they are being asked to undertake so no point rushing things; would that they ever did. Sir Humphrey would simply give an insouciant shrug to Mogg’s request and seek to slow change even further.

Sir Humphrey would have reduced Mogg to component atoms with a withering stare, but yes, Mogg would turn up to an office filled with red tape.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.