PMs change and lol we're all gonna die (but brexit will never end)

The other thing that's not been made clear to me is just *how* bad No Deal is or could be - maybe I've missed it, but it feels like Remainers/stop-no-deal folks haven't presented the problem in a very digestible way. Have they been specifically avoiding worst-case-scenario type shit so as not to be mocked for seeming alarmist?

Yeah, stet otm.

One of the big pains of having lost a referendum on PR is that any attempt to implement it without one will be complained about as anti-democratic.

There's obviously a lot of information from a lot of sources, but when Murdoch's Sky is saying it's bad, that's probably a good start:

https://news.sky.com/feature/what-would-life-in-a-no-deal-brexit-uk-look-like-11584899

Everyone loathes Ian Dunt, but he has at least done solid research on what No Deal would result in, infrastructure-wise.

Here for example: https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like

Lol?

I have had constituency cases of EU nationals being denied settled status despite living here for years. This is a breach of the assurances I and other Leavers gave during the referendum. Please help sort this out @patel4witham before we end up with another Windrush scandal.

— Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan) August 28, 2019

Have they been specifically avoiding worst-case-scenario type shit so as not to be mocked for seeming alarmist

No, not at all. They've been talking about medicine shortages, riots in the street, a return to regular violence in Northern Ireland, food and petrol running out, etc. Fundamentally, a lot of people either don't believe them or don't care - assuming that stuff will level out before long or that alternative arrangements can be made before we hit crisis point.

The most damaging stuff has probably the government reports outlining what amounts to disaster planning - but again, this can be written off as negativity from pampered civil servants, etc.

if you listen to people who have a knowledge of how UK supply chains work calmly talking about what will happen in NDB it's pretty grim listening and they are not being remotely alarmist. I've heard people involved in farming and manufacturing describing how their business could be gone in a month, and describing how especially with these food imports we take for granted, how there isn't any leeway for delays or it will simply just rot in the back of hgv trucks.

Ah, so I've just not been paying strict enough attention, as I suspected. Thanks. xp

Honestly, reading the comments under local news articles (never do this btw) there seems to be a substantial body of opinion that food shortages and people going without stuff will be character building. Blitz spirit is part of it but the objective isn’t just weathering the storm, it seems to be resetting a lot of the material trappings of the last fifty years.

Oh yeah I mean to post this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/northern-ireland-troubles-violence-police-bomb-dissident-no-deal-brexit-a9075286.html

Leadership is failing, trust is being eroded, perspective is being lost, and old prejudices are flourishing. Warnings of trouble on the horizon are not being sounded purely by alarmists and those who would relish a return to conflict. Increasingly, clear-headed, respected voices in Northern Ireland are becoming seriously concerned.

And a response article of sorts from Slugger O'Toole.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/08/25/is-northern-ireland-spiralling-out-of-control/

I like the head boy/girl archetype thing, suzy OTM

my FBPE-est friend surprised me by saying she didn't think Corbyn as PM was "safe" - yes, I know, that's what this thread says FBPErs do, but "surprised" because I know she's voted Labour in the past, and because she regales me with tales of a very rock'n'roll 90s living in squats with punks and drug dealers and is not at all the head-girl-voting Sensible archetype in my head

and the FT yesterday tutting at Boris and then just happily throwing in that people are "rightly" afraid of a Corbyn govt, but nobody ever really explains what's worse about Corbyn than willingly crashing the pound and nuking British business, proroguing parliament, hanging out with Bannon, having ministers who were previously forced to resign for actual security/protocol breaches in cabinet...

there was a good tweet y/day which I can't find now, which quote-tweeted Gauke's "imagine if it was Corbyn" to say "imagine only being able to see anything wrong with it if you imagine Corbyn did it", and that was OTM, and yet so many people are apparently completely unable to even imagine it, and still splutter that it must be completely different somehow

"xps: Corbyn's future would probably depend on whether he'd completed his Damascene conversion on the EU"

Lol @ EU need nonsense. The future is Corbyn as leader going into a general election.

A crushing majority wouldn't be likely for the Tories because of some of the reasoning outlined above + plus social media negating much of the impact of the right-wing press (even with a tighter game on that front from the Tories) and if Brexit were to happen then that wouldn't be as much of an issue except some of its consequences that we could see. It would also focus minds on two very different competing visions for the country.

Another consequence of Brexit happening is the anger that would spill in and around both parties immediately after. You'd think both would unite around and get on with the campaign but I wonder what the effect might be, you'd think it would be felt.

EU *nerd nonsense, autocorrect is my enemy again.

That's alright, I've been assuming speech-to-text, as we've previously settled that you can't read.

For example, the original question being how Corbyn would fare after he lead Labour into an election and they lost.

It's still a weird answer.

Every time sterling drops I’m reminded of Theresa May shoehorning ‘run on the pound’ as an accusation against Labour into half of her PMQs responses (and I’m surely not alone in this).

The only future for a politician is dependant on whether votes are won. What does a fabled conversion to the EU have to do with anything?

The real answer to the question is: if Labour increase their share of seats, win or lose, Corbyn stays. If not, he may decide himself to go.

If Boris Johnson is PM with a good working majority not reliant on the DUP post a GE Corbyn goes.

If it's a hung parliament or better, he stays whatever his views on the lol EU.

One of the big pains of having lost a referendum on PR

tbf, this hasn't actually happened

more background for simon h, if he's still reading:

back during the scottish indyref in 2014 the rhetoric for stay (which in fact won) was derisively dubbed "project fear"

stay in fact won in 2014, but a force was spotted in the rhetoric -- a scorn directed at overreacting panic or similar -- and the term was resurrected during the 2016 referendum campaign, used by leavers against the warnings of remainers, and then when leave won in 2016, the rheotric could be further leveraged: because in the medium-term aftermath, 2016-17ish, and before no deal had coalesced as an option with a following, few of the warned-against dooms materialised.

hence if you took 2016 as the moment that brexit happened (which many did and do, since the immediate response from all the main parties was "respect the results"), then the doomsaying was proved wrong! things weren't so bad! (and even strong remain ppl who understood economics were arguing that the bad effects of hard-brexit-but-with-deal would be long-term – tho genuine and serious – decline not instant catastrophe)

post the 2017 electio, corbyn, despite losing it, was suddenly considered a serious threat instead of a ludicrous joke (he had prfoemred far better than predicted, against a massive MSM headwind, and pushed may into an extremely tight spot in parliament = no overall majoityt and having to make a deal with the DUP, a famously intransigent partner with no compunction abt shafting its allies if/when it felt needful)

when (end 2017) the full-on reachable alternatives to may's hard brexit proposal emerged -- = roughly a corbs-led govt vs no deal -- the MSM screamers were almost entirely committed to rubbishing and undermining corbyn, and the many technical but very concrete threats of no deal almost never reached their front pages. and besides by end 2017 a phalanx of other fears were visibly massing, including trump, global warming, fascism everywhere etc etc. so i think the portrayal, via the "project fear" jibe, still had heft! who's panicking here? guardian readers! when do they not panic? never! who has the balls to see it through? the no-deal gang, it'll be the blitz again and who won the war? (actual ans here = stalin in europe, with some US help, but this is not at all how it's understood in the UK)

and in fact it wasn't till may quit and johnson emerged as leader that the potential reality of no-deal (excluding the guardian) genuinely arrived centre-screen brit media (along with the fact that any planning had barely begun, bcz no deal under may was a threat to get ppl in line not the actual thing she was pushing for)

(we are already seeing may re-evaluated -- including by some centrist libs -- as the great lost tory hope and the only way brexit could have been mitigated)

tl;rd: the fact that civlisation didn't completely collapse the week after leave won the referendum greatly diminished the force of any presentation of worst-case scenarios -- and now that we're facing the possibility of no deal with no margin nearly no margin to mitigate, and the worst (short term) case is on us, we're seeing the sensibles centrist worldview ("obviously it can't happen here, the adults won't let it") breaking apart with terrible suddenness :(

even shorter: there are two project fears at work now, "what if no deal?" and "what if corbyn as PM?", and UK msm has assiduously amplified the second to muffle the first

Thanks for that, I knew some but not all of the finer psychological points. Good luck uk

There's obviously a lot of information from a lot of sources, but when Murdoch's Sky is saying it's bad, that's probably a good start

It's Comcast's Sky we just live under it.

booming post mark

the booming of course comes from the detonation of the uk which means lol we’re all gonna die

it'll be the blitz again and who won the war? (actual ans here = stalin in europe, with some US help, but this is not at all how it's understood in the UK)

I know this is not an original point to make, but it does feel like to a lot of ppl of a certain age the best thing that could happen to the UK would be a catastrophe equivalent to getting bombed by nazis, which is a particularly deranged version of the boomer deference/guilt towards the Greatest Generation.

This piece is relevant on that v question:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/06/today-s-75-year-olds-didn-t-fight-war-so-why-do-we-think-they-did

"actual ans here = stalin in europe, with some US help, but this is not at all how it's understood in the UK"

some of the guff I got for posting about this on the WW2 thread says it isn't just UK ppl who buy propagandist versions of history.

Meanwhile reading around what is happening to Bury FC:

Steve Dale bought Bury on 7 December 2018. 11 days later he set up two new companies, Bury Heritage & Bury Leisure & started transferring assets to them, including the club’s trophies. Some would describe this as the action of a sociopathic asset stripper #DontBuryBury pic.twitter.com/K8hAPELYGA

— PriceOfFootball (@KieranMaguire) August 29, 2019

John McDonnell, just now: “This is no longer a Government. It is now a regime.”

John McDonnell, just now: “This is no longer a Government. It is now a regime.”

get their asses

I like the Corbyn/McDonnell good cop/bad cop thing A LOT.

It's all good:

He added: “The last 24 hours have revealed the true character of Boris Johnson and, as importantly, the real nature of his politics.

“It’s exposed in Johnson a deep-seated arrogant sense of entitlement. Johnson sees himself not as a modern-day Prime Minister, whose authority rests upon the support of a Parliamentary democracy.

“Instead, his actions betray that he’s reverted to a much older Tory tradition. He’s a ruler, ruling over the ruled.

“Democratic practices like parliamentary votes have become encumbrances to the freedom of the ruler. And how dare the broadcast media seek to pose questions and ask for an interview or anything more than a short clip of him grinning.”

I know this is not an original point to make, but it does feel like to a lot of ppl of a certain age the best thing that could happen to the UK would be a catastrophe equivalent to getting bombed by nazis, which is a particularly deranged version of the boomer deference/guilt towards the Greatest Generation.

I'm not sure it's just deference. There is a deep dissatisfaction with the way society has developed that crosses a lot of national boundaries. The strongest opponents of Russian hypercapitalism have often been the pensioners turning out to vote Communist every election. One of the driving forces in Polish religious revanchism has been the elderly people who feel like the benefits of economic and cultural liberalism have passed them by.

There's a lot of awful stuff being mourned by aging Brexiters (the death penalty, corporal punishment, overwhelming whiteness, class deference, etc) but i think there's also a grain of truth in the idea that, material things aside, modern capitalism isn't really working for them either. The absolute collapse in the sense of community that has come along with mobility, atomisation, the privatisation of public space, etc, hits them as hard as anyone. Rolling back to a period when 'we had nothing but we was happy', which appears to be the default description of most of their childhoods, isn't completely bananas.

McDonnell's jarring use of language reminiscent of Joseph Cotterill's long-running thread

Looking for a Northwest Atlantic Archipelago bureau chief. Cover a wide terrain from the sweltering riverine capital to the craggy wastes of the north. Cover a once-promising democracy in decline, but also delight readers with tales of fusty traditions. https://t.co/nQIQL1puo6

— Joseph Cotterill (@jsphctrl) July 4, 2019

So they might actually pause and look at Labour's policies that aim to roll many of these things back, instead of a continuation of that atomisation you describe under Johnson.

Meanwhile this by LP is good. Not so much a coup as an abuse of power, with a reckoning on the side stating how Parliament fails all of us.

[thread] From day one, I’ve been honest about the flaws in our Parliamentary system. I have never glorified Westminster. Democracy for me has never just been about a cross in a box every 5 years. (1/5) pic.twitter.com/fzeko7M95W

— Laura Pidcock MP (@LauraPidcockMP) August 29, 2019

xp to SV

on a tiny note, one new objection i may make to the proposed "northwestern atlantic archipelago" denomination is the 100% certainty that it will be used just like "the UK" but now we'll have agreed that we're in it.

force them to say & Ireland or correct them when they don't, untill you don't need to do either anymore

i assumed he was referring to the US on account of how these islands are in the northeastern atlantic but maybe i'm missing something

xp

Absolutely! It would be a mistake to write them off as unreachable. How you actually get through to that demographic is a huge question but the idea of grass roots social engagement, community events, building bridges between young and old borough by borough, etc, etc - all stuff Corbyn and McDonnell are strongly in favour of - will be important.

no he means the UK (and he also means "northweast"): it's a parody of the absurd (poorly informed patronising etc) way that US media talks about the "third world" but transferred to e.g. in this case the UK and environs

naturally this absurd style would get the case of ireland wrong, it's bad not good

i assumed he was referring to the US on account of how these islands are in the northeastern atlantic but maybe i'm missing something

― VONC louse-wits (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 29 August 2019 11:15 (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

think ive seen NWAA (NW relative to european position) as an offering

could be mistaken

xp yes i know what its doing and i can give benefit of doubt that he may have done this on purpose but

no tbh no i dont

well i figured he just fucked up his geography and nw would work if the orientation was toward europe but you're right d it is strange how many of these reimagined terminlogies somehow entirely accidentally elide the difference between Ireland and the UK

I think part of the problem is that this demographic has been largely insulated from the effects of austerity & therefore doesn’t see or care what the fuss is about.

This vox pop. This fucking vox pop. pic.twitter.com/VKcy9QBObX

— Leonardo Carella (@leonardocarella) June 18, 2019

xps only a tiny thing only struck me now, ive always kinda favoured the archipelago option til just there

we grow as people by considering at further and further removes how the world is gonna fuck up the next good thing

well i liked the way Norman Davies addressed the issue in The Isles but now you've pointed it out there is something interesting about the unconsidered effects of reframing the terminology, and some efforts and intentions are more ingenuous than others

the cotterill bit is referring to the fact that correspondents invariably have to cover & are defined by a region rather than dedicate themselves to a nation state

im happy to admit that its occurred to me incidentally to the prompt

the correct way to assign correspondents in the online age is via online spider diagrams of internet overlap