This is the News!

[IndigoPrime]

That's the problem with FPTP. The Tories and Labour are effectively coalitions. The Lib Dems are sort of one too, having been forged from an alliance, although their party appears more unified and coherent than the other two. Really, we should in the 1990s – and certainly by the mid-2000s – have had two centre-right parties: a more libertarian party akin to the current lot, and a more pragmatic version along the likes of Ken Clarke and such. Similarly, Labour should really be two parties. Others could then merge/realign accordingly.

[Funt Solo]

I know that the art of the news headline is effectively an exercise in clickbait, but it still irritates me when the headline suggests something that just isn't in the article.

This one is "The tank that could fly into battle" - except that it couldn't. So, the fuller headline would be something like "The tank that could fly into battle if some things that are true about tanks weren't". Or "This mad shit (unsurprisingly, really) never worked". Or "Nobody Ever Flew a Tank Into Battle, Except the A-Team in That Fairly Poor Movie, and Even Then it Wasn't a Battle, and They Weren't Actually Flying a Tank".

Summary: fuck off, BBC!

[Tiplodocus]

"Well Boris is the only candidate that actually has a mandate form the electorate!"

The BBC (and every one else) should respond with "But he spaffed that up the wall by lying to the queen, parliament and breaking the law!"

[Funt Solo]

Plus he only got elected on a single issue - which was Brexit. Which happened. So, he doesn't have a mandate. (Plus everyone except twats has realized that Brexit was a shit idea and the best thing the UK could do to try and regain even one iota of stability is beg to be allowed back into the EU. Perhaps by sending them a sack containing the heads of Faragio, Johnson and Rees-Moog.)

[Jim_Campbell]

the best thing the UK could do to try and regain even one iota of stability is beg to be allowed back into the EU.

Highly unlikely they'd have us. At the barest minumum, we'd need a non-Conservative government for the process to begin, so comprehensively have the Tories trashed our relationship with Europe, and even then it's going to have to be incremental.

Start with the customs union (which at least makes the problems with the Good Friday Agreement go away), move on to limited regulatory alignment which would alleviate a signficant number of import/export hurdles and allow us access to some pan-European schemes we're currently excluded from, the rejoin the single market and, maybe, after a decade of contrition, they might consider allowing us to rejoin. On much worse terms than the ones we had when we left.

The EU is never going to send a signal to member states that you can just leave, give it a go on your own, decide you don't like it and walk back in when you feel like it. Particularly not given the way the Tories behaved right through the negotiations, and since.

That's the gift of Brexit.

[paddykafka]

From a texter to Emerald Isle Radio: "What the UK needs now, is to get it's Mojo back. NOT it's BoJo back!"

[IndigoPrime]

CU-first would be the Turkey model. Not sure that would fly, given that although it would remove many issues with the GFA, it'd largely eradicate the UK's ability to do trade deals and also wouldn't impact on 95% of our broader economic and employment problems, which are down to the SM.

The LD approach (which Labour adopts 75% of) appears to come at this from the other direction: stop being dicks > apply to rejoin key pan-European projects (Euratom, Erasmus, etc) > hassle-free movement for eg performers + increased regulatory alignment > rejoin the SM. It stops there (since LD policy after that is effectively rejoin). I imagine everyone can spot the bit Labour's not keen on.

In terms of rejoining, I doubt we'd have that much trouble – at least not as much as people suggest. The key will be reform here. If Labour gets in, even with a whacking majority, and asks to rejoin, it might be turned down, because the problems that led to Brexit won't have gone away. Labour could start the A49 process and lose the next GE and the EU would have wasted a ton of time. With PR, that becomes much less likely, because there have been few times during recent history where the Tories and their chums have had a majority of the vote.

As for the functional aspects of any deal, there are two trains of thought I've seen. The first is the UK would be told "take it or leave it" with a much stricter set of integration demands. That makes some sense, given that the UK being given slack was taken advantage of repeatedly. And even though we got what we wanted 99% of the time (even Cameron, during his negotiations), that was never enough. But I've also seen plenty of people suggesting a deal might not be that different from what we had before.

The EU cannot force a country to give up its currency. It does have to make a commitment, though. So we'd end up in the same space as Sweden rather than Denmark. The other two big things (given that there were also some security opt-outs) were Schengen and the rebate. The former of those would likely be a sticking point, given that Ireland would surely make the UK's re-entry contingent on Schengen being adopted in the UK. But that in itself might come with negotiation, given that the EU has merely admitted that some of the UK's security concerns were well-founded. So perhaps this would be a "yes, if X is implemented". The rebate is, of course, a non-starter at present; but I've seen a few commentators suggest that might return should the EU/Australia deal impact heavily on the farming sector.

So worse terms, sure, but for a given value of worse. Personally, I don't give a shit about sterling (and, as we've seen, nor does the rest of the world), but I get many Brits do. But that wouldn't be an issue anyway. The rebate would be a pity to lose, but would be countered by massive and immediate economic boost. As for Schengen, I'm sure the media would spin this with some kind of "open borders" bollocks, but I personally would like being able to more easily and freely travel within the union. It makes sense to me.

As for Johnson and his mandate, I'd say he had one. Under our appalling constitution, he still technically has one. But the Tories absolutely aren't governing with the current backing of the population. That's often the case with a government anyway – Labour had the same problem. But the sheer scale of the disconnect is astonishing. Labour is now consistently polling over 50%. As I've said before, I'm not sure that's a good thing if it turns out to be sustainable. I don't want to see Labour winning 80% of the seats, and doing another 1997 where it basically apes the Tories in taking all of the power, sidelining smaller parties and doing nothing to reform our system. All that means is we'd sooner or later just have awful Tories running the show again alone, with 100% of the power on 35% of the vote. But as it stands today, that buffer is useful, because there's a good chance it'll erode over the next two years, but still be big enough that Labour can be the biggest party after an election. I'd just sooner it ended up with 300 seats and there were 50 Lib Dems who'd do a deal in return for PR (in legislation – not another referendum) and wider electoral reform.

[sheridan]

New day, new PM (Sunak).

[karlos]

What an utter, utter shitshow it all is.

[Funt Solo]

Sunak's "It's My Turn" speech was very robotic - not as bad as Zuckerberg trying to empathize, but not far off it. Also not as bad as when Gordon Brown tried to smile. But about as far away from genuine and heartfelt as it's possible to get. Not that I need my leaders to be great actors - but then why can't they just be themselves? He also said that he was pleased to be "elected" - which he wasn't, was he? He was nominated.

[paddykafka]

Also not as bad as when Gordon Brown tried to smile.

https://media.tenor.com/hoD7BeyBCgQAAAAd/terminator-smile.gif

[JohnW]

Joe Biden has hailed Sunak's appointment as a 'groundbreaking milestone'.
There's a badly mixed metaphor if ever there was one.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Them Americans can no talk english good like what we does.

[IndigoPrime]

Joe Biden has hailed Sunak's appointment as a 'groundbreaking milestone'.

I'm not sure in what manner. Sunak's outlook is neoliberal and trickle-down, which Biden is against. He's more competent than his two predecessors, but still presided over "eat out to help out" and lost literal billions to fraud. In a normal world, he'd possibly end up as a junior minister. That he's PM yet again shows the dearth of talent in this iteration of the Conservative Party.

[Barrington Boots]

I'm also a bit surprised by some of the 'hooray for Sunak' comments I'm seeing from usually sensible, left-leaning sources. Sunak is awful: bungled things terribly during the pandemic and backed Johnson to the hilt until he decided he could replace him (and bungled that too). The guy was issued an FPN by the police for Partygate FFS. He's an upgrade on Truss in the sense that he's not insane, but he's not exactly competent.

Not sure how we can get from here to a GE within two years. It's a very powerless state of affairs.