Brexit

[zoraster]

From Credit Suisse:



I think it may overplay the likelihood of the outcomes leading to Remain, but the overall decision tree seems fairly solid.

[zoraster]

Well, in practice it's possible a general election (which is certainly possible after Cameron stands down) may act as a second referendum.

[zoraster]

Yeah, but this is a paradigm change.

[zoraster]

I wonder what Gibraltarians are going to do. People talk about Scotland voting Remain, but they only have just over 60% vote for it. Gibraltar had 96%.

EDIT: Apparently Spain has already sought to exert more governance over the rock: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... KKCN0ZA169

[zoraster]

It's pretty common wisdom Eu will act punitively toward the uk. Not out of any venom necessarily but because otherwise it invites other countries to have their own referendum. Make no mistake though: this is the UKs fault

[zoraster]

Chilling don't you think, when governing bodies from the so called free world think referendums are their ennemies and would actively maneuver to quash them in the bud.

What does the west has to sell to the rest of the world beside the democratic ideal and freedom?

Not really, no.

[zoraster]

I don't think you have to believe the EU is perfect, democratic or even very good to realize that leaving was a dumb, dumb decision that hurts the very people who voted for it because of disinformation and false promises brought on by malfeasance of politicians who thought they could use something like this as a political pawn to shore up their right flank.

If you're sitting there as Germany or France and you don't particularly want the EU to unravel, you need to make sure that people don't think they can get just as good a deal outside of the EU as within in. And you can point to sovereignty and democracy, but the countries within the EU also have those things and can and should retain the right to act as they think prudent for their own interests if the countries they're dealing with won't engage with them on their terms -- in this case favorable special terms given to the UK.

In other words, there is a mechanism with which countries can withdraw in Article 50. You get to negotiate the terms of your removal, but if other countries can afford to they get to shrug their shoulders at your market adjustment and wipe their hands of you.

[zoraster]

I'm not sure what you mean by the above, spring.

[zoraster]

I mean, I think corporations will make a lot of threats and what not, but ultimately they'll decide what to do on the basis of their bottom line. I don't think they're likely to engage in a mass conspiracy to punish younger voters more.

[zoraster]

You're right on the first, but for the most part the racism thing hasn't really been done. Keep in mind that this thread was created after the results, so it has more of a "what have you done?" tenor than anything.

[zoraster]

i believe that his piece didn't get aired until after the election there, supposedly because of election fairness rules (or alternatively because murdoch didn't want it aired until then). Of course lots of people watch online, which isn't covered. https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/21/sky ... ht-brexit/

I don't think Oliver's piece could have swayed it to eliminate the 4 point gap though.

[zoraster]

And then Labour seemed to want to make sure that keeps happening by picking Corbyn, but never mind all that.

[zoraster]

And then Labour seemed to want to make sure that keeps happening by picking Corbyn, but never mind all that.

Do you actually think Corbyn is bad, or do you just think he's not populist enough and it's better to give people what they want?

I think he's bad, but more to the point, I think he's bad for the party.

[zoraster]

I think he's bad, but more to the point, I think he's bad for the party.

Well I guess my actual question was, why do you think that?

I'm pro-Corbyn and I know he still has fairly fervent 'grassroots' support. I also think he's a lot more decent and honest than most politicians, and I like his policies.

That's not to say that I don't think it's important to pick someone 'electable', but I'm not sure how that's an easy thing to judge, and so I don't think the pursuit of electable is important at the expense of picking someone actually good.

He has fervent "grassroots" support (hey, so does Farage! Grassroots isn't particularly a good thing), but that's a far cry from "can win against Conservatives." Even in a fractured Tory party that has shown itself to be irresponsible, dedicated to failed austerity policies, do you really doubt that the Conservative Party will clean up against Corbyn?

If the lesson that was learnt from the UK general election was "Golly. We need to put forward someone to the left of Ed Miliband," I think perhaps something has gone wrong with the analysis.

I don't "get" Corbyn's appeal, honestly. I can understand why policy-wise he can be appealing if you share his outlook, a dated 1970s sort of socialism. He's obviously skeptical of the EU, and he did just about the bare minimum to "support" the Remain vote as possible. Alternatively, he really did want to Remain and he's incapable of making a convincing case, which is basically the job of the PM/Leader of the Opposition. I think he wants to nationalize a great number of industries, which I think is misguided. And I think he's sufficiently dogmatic that he'd carry it out even against the advice of experts.

But mostly I think the Conservatives have been awful for the UK -- even before Brexit. And I think there's no better way to assure you lose the next election than select Corbyn. After Labour losing Scotland, which I don't think is coming back any time soon, it's not exactly like a pretty major leftward shift is the winning formula.

[zoraster]

Labour have even less hope of getting elected any time soon by being a slightly less mean version of the Tories (a position that will only continue to mean being dragged further and further rightwards), which was demonstrably shown to not be a thing at the last general election, than they do under Corbyn.

I heartily disagree.

I think it succumbs to the natural inclination that the way to win is to be closer to ones personal values and rationalize around that. But it's fantasy.

It's not like offering some throwback party that was routinely trounced from '79 to '92 is offering this "third way" that suddenly people will come to realize is the way forward.

[zoraster]

Maybe, but Labour as a bland party would still be well positioned to win in a general election in the near future, and under Corbyn it's not.

[zoraster]

Labour have even less hope of getting elected any time soon by being a slightly less mean version of the Tories (a position that will only continue to mean being dragged further and further rightwards), which was demonstrably shown to not be a thing at the last general election, than they do under Corbyn.

I heartily disagree.

I think it succumbs to the natural inclination that the way to win is to be closer to ones personal values and rationalize around that. But it's fantasy.

It's not like offering some throwback party that was routinely trounced from '79 to '92 is offering this "third way" that suddenly people will come to realize is the way forward.

I mean, you could take this to a ridiculous point zor, so take this as that. What use is it to become a copy of the conservatives (and have equal chances at winning) if that just means you going to do the same shit? At what point are you selling too much of your soul for that chance of a victory? That point surely is somewhere along that line. I think we are arguing here if labour already passed that point.

And in this case, I don't think soul is as woolly as it sounds. There is a group of voters associated with it, that left labour for this very reason. You seem to think that labour could compete with the conservative voters, while in the last elections they didn't lose their votes to them. They lost them to the scots and ukip. I don't know if agree with your statement that they are lost forever. Ukip for sure is riding a high now, they'll run out of steam. The Scots are going to be interesting for sure, but regardless their message is way different. I think it might be easier for labour to find votes on the left. Not even the progressive left, they don't matter.

Well insofar as things can be broken down on a simple left-right continuum (and yes, it's substantially more complicated than that), the idea is to place yourself slightly more center than your primary opponent while trying to capture as much of your policy preferences as possible. In this fantasy simplistic world where both parties are totally rational actors, both will tend toward the middle (whatever the middle happens to be, there's not an objective middle or anything, just the middle voter's preference at the time of the election), but in the real world party, individual leaders, a more complicated field than simply "left or right" on a multitude of issues (see immigration), ability to influence voter preference through campaigning, difference in salience to various voters, an uneven distribution of policy preferences among constituencies, and a lack of perfect information on what that policy position keep it from ever being truly the same.

Regardless, the idea isn't to become a copy of the Conservative Party, it's to place yourself competitively enough to win while capturing the most you can of your own preferences, particularly those that are important to you. Negotiation and compromise is a feature of democracy, not a bug.

---
SNP is a problem, but it's not one that's going to be solved by a leftward shift even as the SNP exists generally to the left of "New" Labour. No one really believes Labour wouldn't form a coalition with the SNP if they needed to, and it's hard to imagine SNP forming a coalition with the Tories unless they believe they can win a Scotland independence referendum and that's obviously a very temporary coalition.

UKIP may capture a certain number of votes from traditional Labour strongholds, but unless Labour wants to go down the road of xenophobic isolationism that's not going to be something they can compete with either. I don't think being to the left is going to convince these voters to turn Labour.

So the question is about the rest of the country that voted mostly for the top three parties, representing 75.2% of the total vote and 87.7% of the MPs. And I don't think you're winning those by going all in on a more extreme version.

[zoraster]

1979 Thatcher won a 43 MP majority. Labour turned leftward for the 1983 election and Thatcher won a 144 MP majority. Part of that was the SDP split, but that didn't exactly come out of nowhere.

[zoraster]

Also, it's worth pointing out that plenty of people have legitimate middle-ground political views. This idea that you're selling you soul or you're a secret Other Party member if you happen to sit between the X-wing of your Party and the closer wing of the Other Party is misguided.

[zoraster]

He can't even win

principled

, for gosh sake.

[zoraster]

He doesn't even win 18-24, y'all!

And I mean.... this is shocking:

[zoraster]

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but you live in a representative democracy where the voters, you know, vote. So idiots or not, if you can't win them, your "brilliancy" will be relegated to (at most) opposition.

[zoraster]

I feel like I can make a multitude of concessions that I don't really believe (e.g. "it's the media's fault!") and the point remains: selecting Corbyn as your party's leader is the perfect way to ensure electoral irrelevancy for the the near to medium future.

[zoraster]

Labour were irrelevant anyway. They were basically became a shit version of the Tory Party.

Unless you're a Tory, that's either an ignorant statement or one

entirely

designed to justify a politically unsuccessful policy shift.

[zoraster]

Also, that ignores the fact that you don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for a local representative.

Outside of the

technical

point that yes you vote for a local representative, if you vote this way in practice you are a fool. A backbencher's power is almost entirely wrapped up in their ability to combine to create a Government.

[zoraster]

They didn't vote for SNP because of their local MP though. They did it because what you can accomplish with a group of people can send a message. Best case, SNP can form a coalition government and force a referendum or other devolution and potentially form part of the Government.

Regardless, we're talking about Labour, a party that (probably?) wants to actually be in charge. Effect change by being in Government. If Labour wants to be a protest party or simply a party that represents a fraction of the country without a real shot of winning, then the path that's being traveled upon is fine. But if I'm a Labour supporter, I'd rather be able to counteract the Tories.

As for "doing shit," sure. I'm not saying MPs do nothing -- they certainly provide constituency services. But I think it's silly to believe in the salience for most voters of these things. Simply put: if the country does not want your leader to be PM, having a collection of the very best local MPs isn't going to be particularly helpful in elevating your leader to PM.

[zoraster]

Labour were irrelevant anyway. They were basically became a shit version of the Tory Party.

Unless you're a Tory, that's either an ignorant statement or one

entirely

designed to justify a politically unsuccessful policy shift.

Nope, it's totally accurate. People are pissed that Jeremy Corbyn is an actually left-wing leader of a supposedly left-wing party, rather than just a centre leader. By distinguishing himself, he's dared to make it controversial.

Great, he couldn't even win 18-24. That is, 18-24 of all voters of all parties. How is this relevant? Who gives a damn what someone who is destined to vote Tory or UKIP anyway thinks?

Really, Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem voters think May would make a better PM than Corbyn? I could have told you that myself, it's plain damn logic.

He divides voters. So what? FDR was constantly criticised by the media and big company owners yet he won by a landslide. Good politicians are inevitably going to have haters, and ones such as Corbyn which have more "controversial" policies are going to have even more. That doesn't mean he should step down. Now, I think he should step down because him being leader is resulting in complaints in his party which is putting Labour in absolute shambles during an already politically turbulent time, but not because some voters don't like him.

I mean, if your point is "I don't give a shit about winning elections" then okay. Fine. My point is that he's not going to be elected, so although I'd want to believe most people

care

about winning and the Tories not being in power, if you don't then we don't have a quibble on this point.

[zoraster]

Sure, some people will dislike the new leader. Enough to vote for a different party in a general election? Some, probably. But probably not that many, and the gains from selecting a better leader can easily offset that.

[zoraster]

Labour were irrelevant anyway. They were basically became a shit version of the Tory Party.

Unless you're a Tory, that's either an ignorant statement or one

entirely

designed to justify a politically unsuccessful policy shift.

Nope, it's totally accurate. People are pissed that Jeremy Corbyn is an actually left-wing leader of a supposedly left-wing party, rather than just a centre leader. By distinguishing himself, he's dared to make it controversial.

Great, he couldn't even win 18-24. That is, 18-24 of all voters of all parties. How is this relevant? Who gives a damn what someone who is destined to vote Tory or UKIP anyway thinks?

Really, Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem voters think May would make a better PM than Corbyn? I could have told you that myself, it's plain damn logic.

He divides voters. So what? FDR was constantly criticised by the media and big company owners yet he won by a landslide. Good politicians are inevitably going to have haters, and ones such as Corbyn which have more "controversial" policies are going to have even more. That doesn't mean he should step down. Now, I think he should step down because him being leader is resulting in complaints in his party which is putting Labour in absolute shambles during an already politically turbulent time, but not because some voters don't like him.

I mean, if your point is "I don't give a shit about winning elections" then okay. Fine. My point is that he's not going to be elected, so although I'd want to believe most people

care

about winning and the Tories not being in power, if you don't then we don't have a quibble on this point.

I mean... did you even bloody read my post? That post wasn't even close to the point you're saying I'm trying to make.

I read your reply. The only way I can charitably interpret it is "I care more about what the party thinks irrespective of the chances for a general election." Because otherwise you'd never make a statement that dismisses the fact he loses even 18-24. Because he sure doesn't do better with any other age group. And if you can't win 18-24, you can't win 25-34, you can't win 35-44, you can't win 45-54, you can't win 55-64, and you can't win 65+ who exactly do you think is voting for you?

This isn't, by the way, a statement about whether he wins a LABOUR LEADER election, obviously. Maybe he will. I think odds are roughly... even? Maybe even slightly in his favor. I'm arguing about whether he is a terrible choice to continue to lead the party.

[zoraster]

I don't know why it doesn't support the idea he would result in low Labour votes if he were to remain in power. Lots of things can happen between now and a GE, of course, but it's certainly relevant to Labour's electoral chances.

As to whether a leader is "worth" having, I'd argue the ability for the party to win in the general election should be one of the primary criteria. It's a "necessary but not sufficient" one. I think it's reasonable to believe that a certain level of increased risk in losing a GE is worth having in order to get the person you want, but that has to have a limit.

[zoraster]

I don't know why it doesn't support the idea he would result in low Labour votes if he were to remain in power.

How about the fact that the categories are divided by "voting intention", meaning that even those Labour ones who say that May would make a better leader are still planning on voting Labour anyway (because most people vote for a

party

that fits with their politics rather than for the rather changeable leader)?

I absolutely believe that's the case. Most people in a party will vote for the party that fits their politics rather than the leader. It's logical and makes sense to do so. But that doesn't win elections. That's a very baseline of support, and in anything approaching a marginal constituency, you're going to suffer if your leader -- the person you're putting forward as the next PM -- is seen even by those in your party as not being up for the job.

Regardless, that isn't responsive to the other chart that shows across every age demographic May is seen as making a better PM. I do not get how that doesn't trouble you deeply if you're Labour.

[zoraster]

Well, obviously the hope should be not to repeat last GE performance but improve upon it. Voters for the Tories last time don't have to be voters for them this time. But you don't change those votes by selecting someone like Corbyn.

[zoraster]

I think winning SNP voters is likely not about the left-right of it but whether they're more interested in their inward facing or the UK as a whole. I think people are pretty aware (whatever they might say in the run up to the election) that the SNP and Labour would be fine in a coalition government if it came to that. Regardless, SNP's 56 constituencies obviously aren't enough to put Labour back in the driver's seat even if they went left and could capture them.

The Green Party is a more interesting question because unlike the SNP their votes aren't divided cleanly. On the face, gaining Green votes seems like a way it might flip marginal constituencies. After all, the Green Party did manage to get 1.1m votes. If the Labour Party had captured all of that, it'd have put them near the Conservatives totals (though obviously the Tories had their own flank party in UKIP).

But diving into it, I don't think this is a likely path to a majority. Where the Green Party finished second: Liverpool Riverside, Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central and Briston West Labour STILL controls those. Obviously the Green Party controls Brighton Pavilion so theoretically you could gain a seat there.

[zoraster]

Worth pointing out is that the Greens and SNP combined only had about 200k more votes total than the Lib Dems in a year that was pretty bad for that party.

[zoraster]

I understand that. That doesn't change my point even a little bit, which is that moving leftward to capture more votes because you might get those SNP seats back is not enough. And I even mentioned that I don't think that SNP's control over those seats has much to do with spectrum positioning in the first place, so I don't think Corbyn increases the chances of gaining those seats back even if that was enough.

And as I said, I think Labour should be... well, not happy, but at least content to form some sort of coalition government with SNP.

[zoraster]

Obviously politics is a complex and multifaceted creature. But Ed Miliband was generally left of Brown and Blair, and the Labour Party I think bore that out.

Year	Labour Leader	Labour	SNP
1997	Blair	56	6
2001	Blair	56	5
2005	Blair	41	11
2010	Brown	41	11
2015	E. Miliband	1	56

It doesn't appear to me that the SNP's gains in 2015 were about Labour not being left enough but rather an inward looking mentality. Labour necessarily can't capture that in the face of nationalist sentiment because it has to be a UK-wide party.

[zoraster]

Well, I'm wildly speculating here, but I think Scotland has a lot of people who would love to be able to vote for independence but have recognized (particularly with the referendum) that it's impractical and might have real world consequences that are negative. So voting for the SNP, which isn't a vote for independence in and of itself, is a way to express that desire -- and get devolved powers -- without actually having to separate completely.

[zoraster]

Yeah, I'm not trying to make an argument whether or not scotish independence is a good or bad thing at all. I'm saying I think the FREEDOM aspect shouldn't be downplayed. Sometimes it's latent sometimes not. And I think in places where that feeling is less potentially risky, a SNP vote is expressive in a way that some people didn't feel comfortable doing when voting yes or no literally led to that result.

The fact 45% or whatever voted to leave the UK is astounding, really.

[zoraster]

Corbyn is going to win. Labour voters have a death wish I guess.

[zoraster]

There's a lot of time between now and the next general election. If I had to hazard a guess even under Smith it'd be a tough election, but the variance is large. But I'm far more sure that if Corbyn is selected there's no chance at all for the next election. And I don't think the left does themselves any favors in the long term either. It's not like having someone like Corbyn perpetually losing elections is going to lead to the achievement of real goals.

[zoraster]

well this is worthy of a bump.


It begins.

[zoraster]

Well as of yesterday the Scottish Parliament voted to demand a new independence referendum.

[zoraster]

I'm sure the tories will resist giving one, so I guess we get to see how Scotland attempts to press for one. Realistically, you might need a new election that puts SNP in coalition in Westminster to get another vote.

[zoraster]

to be fair, there's a lot more incentive for ireland to agree to some sort of bilateral treaty than most.

[zoraster]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 56506.html

Merkel stepping in to say that separation has to come first and can't run parallel to trade.

[zoraster]

Market seems mixed on this. Looks like it was assumed Brexit was happening and Merkel's response is seen as -- at the very least -- just the expected response.

FTSE 100 and 250 up for the day, British Pound down vs. the USD about 1.5% from its high on Monday (though down 28% from its high in 2015, 38% from the high in 2014, and 69% from 2007)

[zoraster]

mostly the same as before, honestly. 1.25 per dollar, FTSE 100 and 250 roughly the same.

Figure most of the negative effects predicted are currently baked into the price by investors.

[zoraster]

That's kind of complicated. https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... n#spending

I think a bigger question isn't the actual tax and spend of it, it's the effect of trade restrictions and immigration restrictions. The UK is the second largest economy in the EU (though France isn't too far behind). It serves as a large market for exports from EU countries.

[zoraster]

Well, I mean a former Tory leader DID use the falklands in reference to Gibraltar, so kind of sudden, but mostly inconsequential as he's not in a position of power.

Gibraltar is in a pretty crummy place though. They voted 96% to stay in the EU, but they've also voted in similarly high numbers in the past to remain entirely British.

[zoraster]

What? Reread what I just said.

[zoraster]

I do mean it negative. Gibraltar is in a bad place: they want to be British because they are historically british, enjoy many of the benefits of being in a (generally) stronger economy, like having the pound, etc. But Spain is obviously hugely important to Gibraltar, and access to freedom of movement and trade is incredibly important.

So whereas before they were able to have both without much consequence, now they're basically at the mercy of UK and EU negotiators taking notice of their need to retain both. And for the first time in a long time Spain probably has the stronger hand now. They don't need Gibraltar to thrive, so could easily reject any proposed trade or movement policy they want without some form of assertion of Spanish power over Gibraltar -- which Gibraltar citizens have obviously avoided in the past by heavy margins.

I don't know that Spain WILL do that, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility, and Spain has made some noises that it's interested in using this as leverage.

So yeah. I think Gibraltar is in a negative, crummy place right now.

[zoraster]

You're having some different conversation than I am. Go ahead and have it I guess. Mine felt more interesting, but we're talking about what myko wants to.

[zoraster]

More realistically, I don't have any idea why you think both (a) Gibraltar isn't about the economy for UK, never has and (b) "it's practically the spanish economy"

It's a weird duality where you're assuming Spain cares exclusively about the economy and the UK doesn't at all.

But let's put that to rest: neither is really about the economy as it relates to Gibraltar. Which is why GIBRALTARIANS are in a bad place. Because the fight is over sovereignty, not the economy, but for those living in gibraltar, it's at least partially about the economy.

Before, Gibraltar had the best of both worlds. They could trade freely, they could move from one to the other freely, but they were part of the UK which they like. Now they essentially have to choose which is more important to them OR some sort of trade agreement that takes Gibraltar into account has to be made. But ask yourself why SPAIN would want to just give Gibraltarians free trade and travel when the EU as a whole doesn't even want to give that to the UK at a whole, which is a far more significant trade partner than just Gibraltar.

[zoraster]

Country	GDP
United Kingdom	2,861 Billion
Spain	1,252 Billion
Gibraltar	2 Billion

Economically speaking, Gibraltar is a rounding error to both Spain and the UK.

The position Gibraltar is in is somewhat similar to what Northern Ireland is placed in except Northern Ireland is 15% the size of the Republic of Ireland whereas Gibraltar is 0.15% of Spain.

[zoraster]

I KNOW THAT MYKO

[zoraster]

like what the heck do you think I'm arguing?

I'm saying that the discussion over Gibraltar FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SPAIN AND THE UK isn't about the economy.

From the perspective of GIBRALTARIANS (i.e. the people who are citizens of gibraltar, live in gibraltar, etc.) it's very much important.

It's like you have this lecture you want to give and no matter what I'm saying you're going to go off the other way to give it.

[zoraster]

And sure. I don't know what will happen regarding Gibraltar. Maybe nothing! But that doesn't mean they're not in a tough spot right now. Like I'm sure they'll be reassured that you don't think anything's going to happen, but they're a pawn in someone else's game the moment. That's not a position you'd like to be in, particularly when the status quo is great for you.

[zoraster]

I'm trying to explain that nobody actually wants the situation to change. You somehow expect one to happen, on the basis that Spain wouldn't care about the economic situation in gibraltar.

Spain

100% wants the situation to change. Their interest in Gibraltar isn't theoretical and isn't new. I don't doubt they'd be willing to put a hold on their claim for longer if given something suitably juicy, but they aren't playing about this either.

[zoraster]

It's hilarious that the UK thinks it has any chance of getting EU agencies to be based on the UK: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/u ... 9?mode=amp

I'm sure the UK doesn't care and wants to use it as leverage, but it's such a transparently dumb idea.