Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Remember the days when people had jobs/careers before entering politics......... MP's of all parties were better for it. As brought something with them of value.

I'm not sure I really do remember those days. I would've thought for most of parliament's history most MPs were professional politicians because they were rich. We still seem to be inclined to think people only a step or two from being landed gentry have a knack of knowing what the electorate want. The rise of labour in recent generations will have increased those with jobs entering parliament but it's still a rich person's game.

On the whole I don't really have that much of a problem with professional politicians. I employ plumbers because they're good at plumbing rather than their holistic life experience. I'm not convinced that working down t'pit and then becoming a labour MP or a stockbroker and then a Tory MP adds any particular value.

I'm not sure what this has got to do with my accusation that you just want a bit more blue in parliament.

gfplux

fred_jackson wrote: »

I have to say with the conintual delays of Brexit, my partner and I have pretty much put our lives on hold. We want to buy a house and were ready a while ago but we're unsure on what's going to happen post-Brexit... No one does!! We would hate to buy a house only then to leave the EU and end up in negative equity! Any thoughts?

It would be wise to wait and see.

Tromking

BobQ wrote: »

No. That is what you think its role should be. It is PMs job to form a government that has the confidence of the house. Parliament is there to scrutinise the legislation presented to it. You must try not to conflate what you want with the facts.

BobQ wrote: »

Try reading a book on the UK's unwritten constitution. The above is frankly nonsense. As I said above, there is a world of difference between what Parliament's role is and what you think it should be.

For example I think a PM should try to unite the country but they rarely do because the party system encourages a winner takes all approach whatever minority of the popular vote the obtain.

Its the job of a party leader to form a government, only when he/she has the confidence of the house does he/she become PM. We don't vote for Primeministers directly.
The situation we had was that we had a functioning Government that lost its hobbled together majority, and the house refused its longstanding duty to vote it down and instead chose to inflict on the country a period of complete stasis.
Nothing wrong with scrutiny of the Executive, however when that scrutiny ends the life of a Government, Parliament must follow convention and act accordingly.
Good to see that fact finally hit home yesterday.

mayonnaise

Anyone up for a little flutter on the upcoming GE result?

Here's mine.

Con 280
Lab 250
Lib Dem 40
Brexit 20
SNP 40
Other 20

Lab/LD/SNP coalition or supply and confidence agreement.

Place your bets

Malthusian

The Lib Dems can't join in coalition with either Leave party without an even bigger crapstorm than when they "betrayed their party" by supporting tuition fees under the ConDem coalition. At least the tuition fees only directly affected a minority of Lib Dems. Joining a Labour coalition which took Britain out of the EU (with or without a referendum) would betray literally every single Lib Dem voter. Lib Dem = Remain Party. It would be like the Greens campaigning for fracking.

Betraying their student vote made the Lib Dems extinct until Remain resurrected them. Betraying Remain would obliterate the Lib Dems and salt the earth.

Labour activists are oblivious to this because they have always viewed the Lib Dems as confused children who will wake up tomorrow and realise they are Labour voters. They refuse to acknowledge that Lib Dems have their own beliefs and priorities which conflict with Labour's just as often as they do with the Tories'. And at the moment, Lib Dem priority #1 is cancelling Brexit without a referendum.

If Mayo's prediction is correct a Grand Brexit Coalition of LabCon is the most likely way forward, followed by another general election after we're out.

The alternative is for a ConScots coalition, secured by a binding guarantee of a new Scottish independence referendum.

So in other words Labour would have to choose between the country or Momentum. It either holds its nose and joins a grand coalition to git Brexit durn, or precipitates the breakup of the UK.

My own prediction? Tories 330, rest who cares. The idea that Remain Tories hate Leaving so much that they'll put Corbyn in power is a fantasy.

Herzlos

mayonnaise wrote: »

SNP 40

Only gaining 5 of the Tory held seats?

movilogo

The king maker in next election could be either LibDem or Brexit party - depending on how much Remain and Leave votes they attract.

FPTP is incompatible with multi-party system, so even with huge vote count, Brexit party may not win many seats while SNP can swipe the floor with only few votes.

epinjy

mayonnaise wrote: »

Anyone up for a little flutter on the upcoming GE result?

Brexit 20??? They are an irrelevance in this election. It comes down to how remain splits, leave knows Con is only choice.

Something like
Con 340
Lab 220
SNP 40
Lib 30
Brexit 0

lisyloo

Malthusian wrote: »

The idea that Remain Tories hate Leaving so much that they'll put Corbyn in power is a fantasy.

I can only definitely speak for 2 (being a married couple of the same opinion) but I can categorically say you are wrong.

I live in a swing seat.

It’s not just about brexit, it’s about austerity, the bungling of IR35 etc.
Just cancelling the budget means Livelihoods of millions of self employed are up in the air. Some of us don’t know about our jobs or where we will be living. Why would we vote Tory when they won’t even give us clarity or notice to major changes to our lives?

This is not just personal, there is a 6 figure number of contractors (plus their spouses) who are now much less likely to vote Tory.

Just to be clear, I don’t object to changes. I object to lack of clarity and notice.

Thrugelmir

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Yes, carrying out an action which makes the country poorer is a stupid thing to do. Carrying it out in the full knowledge that it's going to make the country poorer is negligent (there was another study issued yesterday showing the negative dividend of leaving the EU). .

GDP isn't wealth. Politico's love to bandy the figures around. Means little though. Ownership of the assets is what counts.