@sturdyAlex's Threads
7 added
I didn’t mean to pick on any BBC journalist, especially not someone I admire. The point I was making was that the “I voted Remain BUT” voter is STATISTICALLY one of the rarest creatures in our political landscape but is somehow overrepresented in every BBC sample.
Basically, the professional trolls and botfarms are targeting the BBC with this fictitious voter (just like they target twitter) and the BBC in its maniacal quest for a sort of inane chocolate-box balance (let’s have one of everything) falls for it every time.
Only that’s not balance. If you end up representing X and Y view in every programme, even though X and Y are wholly niche, you end up propagandising them as being mainstream. And pretty soon you create a feedback loop.
Enjoyed gorgeous Durham today and its welcoming folk and its socialist history. Tonight another performance of @ETOpera’s universally acclaimed Seraglio. So nice to be on the road with such a hit show. A handful of tickets still going @GalaDurham.
Do say hello after. x
Do say hello after. x
I especially enjoyed this cheeky chap. Spotted him yet? #Durham
I must admit, walking around Brexity Durham, today of all days, with a @RemainiacsCast big button on my jacket, felt a bit defiant.
Three MPs - ERG, Labour and former Tory - who have declared support for PM’s stitch-up.
I want you to REALLY LISTEN to what they say on a 2nd Ref. All acknowledge it would probably be a Remain win, but that’s too messy. They all know they push this through AGAINST the majority.
I want you to REALLY LISTEN to what they say on a 2nd Ref. All acknowledge it would probably be a Remain win, but that’s too messy. They all know they push this through AGAINST the majority.
Can you imagine, can you fucking FATHOM it? Three elected MPs in a mature democracy, appearing on national TV, and saying OUT LOUD: “Well, yeah, we know this is a HORRIBLE idea, we suspect we’re shoving it through AGAINST the wishes of the country. But fuck it. We’re bored.”
I kept waking up in the middle of the night and thinking about this little exchange. Genuinely.
I know we’ve become jaded from so much BIG STUFF happening.
But it’s in these little, seemingly innocuous exchanges that the soul of the country is slowly suffocated.
I know we’ve become jaded from so much BIG STUFF happening.
But it’s in these little, seemingly innocuous exchanges that the soul of the country is slowly suffocated.
Amazing from #Newsnight. A Commons that is by all estimates evenly split, and they have three MPs who have declared for a deal they haven’t read vs. @LaylaMoran being told “the consensus from these gentlemen is that the country is sick and tired”.
Balance, my arse. Shame on you.
Balance, my arse. Shame on you.
Balance... Literally a 40 second speech about how we all MUST admit now, how totally spiffing Johnson is, wot wot. #Newsnight
So, no @KirstyWark, I don’t have to give credit to Johnson. He started pursuing a deal only when primary legislation forced him and a unanimous Supreme Court stopped him from gagging MPs. And he didn’t “reopen” the agreement. He begged to be allowed to revert to an earlier draft.
Everyone is asking me for a guess on what will happen. It’s impossible. At the moment it’s marginal. Either side can win by a handful or lose by a handful. This may shift over the next few days, but anyone selling you confident estimates is talking utter shite. (Cont’d)
The only four helpful things I can say (and they are merely contextual) are:
1. It’s clear the EU is thoroughly sick of us and want the mess finally resolved. But don’t be spooked by EU “no extension” rumblings. They said the same before the May deal was voted on, to help her.
1. It’s clear the EU is thoroughly sick of us and want the mess finally resolved. But don’t be spooked by EU “no extension” rumblings. They said the same before the May deal was voted on, to help her.
2. If the deal fails, the law near enough requires an extension to be requested. The EU will grudgingly grant it, because they do not want no deal. If the deal succeeds, we get plenty more bites at the cherry to attach a confirmatory referendum to it in the implementation stages.
As has often been the case, @ph_lamberts remains a go-to source for no-nonsense political reaction from Brussels.
“Don’t forget he kicked out, rudely, 21 of his own people 3 weeks ago. I’m not sure all of them will be happy to come back into the fold and say: thank you, Boris.”
“Don’t forget he kicked out, rudely, 21 of his own people 3 weeks ago. I’m not sure all of them will be happy to come back into the fold and say: thank you, Boris.”
On Corbyn’s idea of negotiating a different deal:
“Well, that is a bit disingenuous, to be honest.”
“Well, that is a bit disingenuous, to be honest.”
On the possibility of a confirmatory referendum:
“Let’s give it back to the the people. We have a negotiated deal now. Let’s put that deal to a referendum.”
“Let’s give it back to the the people. We have a negotiated deal now. Let’s put that deal to a referendum.”
Donald Tusk, April 11: "Please do not waste this time."
The UK, October 14:
The UK, October 14:
The only country which, in times of profound crisis, puts on a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
Ooh. Nearly. 😂
Beyond rhetoric, how rational is No.10 strategy? Consider the threat, for instance, to countries who support delay moving “to the bottom of the queue”. An extension can ONLY be agreed unanimously, putting all EU27 bottom of the queue, which automatically also becomes the top. 1/
Again, Cummings’s poor grasp of Game Theory is key. His opening Do-Or-Die gambit was a comic misunderstanding of the “Game of Chicken” scenario. A strategy of ripping out the steering wheel only works with two players in equal jeopardy and only if you’re in the driver’s seat. 2/
He soon discovered that a) he faced multiple opponents, so threatening to crash into all of them was not a credible threat; b) the EU rightly considers the peril of no-deal less dangerous to it than to the UK; and c) that Parliament is in charge of the vehicle. A multi-fail. 3/
After three years of claiming its readers definitely knew what they voted for and it definitely included leaving the Single Market, the Express TODAY are running - I kid you not - a "BREXIT EXPLAINED: WHAT IS THE SINGLE MARKET? - A SIMPE GUIDE" piece.
*bashes face on keyboard*
*bashes face on keyboard*
I can't fucking even
no
no
It like that scene in Death Becomes Her after Streep has drunk the elixir and Rossellini says "Now, a warning".
UK is less densely populated than many EU regions and barely top 50 globally. Issue is that HALF of all rural land is owned by the richest 0.6%. Top 10 landowners control more than 1m acres; Crown Estate alone, one third.
Stop blaming immigrants for poor planning and inequality.
Stop blaming immigrants for poor planning and inequality.
It is perfectly possible to plan for utilities, doctors, schools and transport. People go where jobs are created. We're just rubbish at doing it. And since EU27 migrants are - by any measure - net contributors, their absence would mean LESS MONEY for public services, not more.
The exact same arguments were used against your father, when he migrated. It is shameful to perpetuate this nonsense, by thinking your family was somehow "different".
I think theories about a deal with Hungary to veto an extension are wild. But even if true:
1. Hungary is likely to use it as leverage for some concession, then sell Johnson down the river. It's not like he can say "Oi! We had a dodgy deal!" They know where their interests lie.
1. Hungary is likely to use it as leverage for some concession, then sell Johnson down the river. It's not like he can say "Oi! We had a dodgy deal!" They know where their interests lie.
2. Even if the plan works, it will leave an already hostile Parliament with no option but to remove Johnson and revoke. The duplicity would give Parliament all the political cover to press the Revoke button. Good luck convincing a majority of voters to start the process again.
3. Just to add, however, I insist the theories are wild. Simply because, if that is indeed his secret plan, you'd see no Hungarian delegation near Downing Street, even if it were National UK Goulash Day.
I don't know where this fits in Liz Truss's long and distinguish catalogue of idiocy, but pretty near the top. As Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, apparently, she doesn't need to know what Boris is offering to the EU.
That's because Liz is "focussed on international trade". Which trade with the EU, of course, WILL BE post-exit. And what does she reply to the first question any third country asks her: "What will your relationship be with the EU?" Presumably, "I don't know. Above my pay grade."
I just find the idea that Liz Truss is the smartest, shrewdest, best negotiator that we have as a country, as profoundly depressing as it is thoroughly offensive. Both to the UK population and to the leaders she meets. You could pick someone randomly off the street and do better.
Powell spot on: This “deal” is designed to be rejected. Instead of presenting it to the EU to be discussed, the PM leaked it to the press, put it in his conference speech as and sent it to individual EU27 gov’ts. All this is entirely designed for his domestic audience.
Johnson’s take-it-or-leave-it offer totally contravenes what UK signed up to in 2017. Both in terms of content (the promise was “no regulatory barriers” - not barriers five miles away) AND in terms of process (UK agreed to negotiate with appointed team - now trying to bypass it).
Important to remember the backstop is not an end in itself. It’s a mechanism for achieving a solution which complies with UK obligations under GFA, to preserve an all-island-economy and facilitate both Irish and British identities. Johnson’s deal patently does NOT achieve this.
"You know what it's like with the EU", says @DamianCollins to @adamboultonSKY, "they always say no, until they say yes."
Only problem with betting the UK's future on this is, it's just not true. Often the EU say no, until they say "what's wrong with you, we said no". See TTIP.
Only problem with betting the UK's future on this is, it's just not true. Often the EU say no, until they say "what's wrong with you, we said no". See TTIP.
@DamianCollins @adamboultonSKY And, as ever, forgetting EU27 leaders also have domestic electorates to contend with. German public trust in the UK as a partner, for instance, has dropped 17 points since Johnson took over, to its lowest rating in decades. @DamianCollins @adamboultonSKY
telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/0…
telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/0…
SEVENTEEN POINTS in three months.
I say this with real affection for the BBC and the thousands who do amazing work there. I do not subscribe to conspiracies; I just think a bit of laziness has crept into weekend reporting
BUT
This is how the top story is being reported today. It is a big, big problem. [thread]
BUT
This is how the top story is being reported today. It is a big, big problem. [thread]
2. Objectively, the factual rump of the story is that the PM has been referred for investigation. It is NOT some anonymous unsubstantiated Trumpian response from Downing St. I see this happen far too much now: The No.10 narrative is adopted in the *framing* of the story itself.
3. Nothing that follows can fix this. No amount of reportage and nuanced discussion can dislodge the fact that the entire hour's bulletin opens with the words "A politically motivated attack". It is the equivalent of the big capital letters on a front page. It colours everything.
Interesting how “Losers’ Consent” is recently Brexiters’ new favourite chewing gum flavour. “Losers’ Consent” in political theory relies on two absolute preconditions: a) the vote is seen as legitimate; and b) the “victors” accept any mandate is limited by the Rule of Law. #bbcqt
So, yeah, @MarkReckless. If you really wonder why “Losers’ Consent” is not forthcoming, maybe a certain level of introspection is also needed, into how the “victors” have tried to overreach at every possible level. #bbcqt
What “Losers’ Consent” DOES NOT mean, is: sure, you won 52-48, so I acquiesce to you doing whatever you want in perpetuity. #bbcqt
Let me offer two small pearls of hope in this clusterfuck:
1. "Genius electoral strategists" like Cummings always end up overconfident and overreaching. Remember Lynton Crosby? He was an "unbeatable genius" right up until Goldsmith's mayoral campaign and May losing her majority.
1. "Genius electoral strategists" like Cummings always end up overconfident and overreaching. Remember Lynton Crosby? He was an "unbeatable genius" right up until Goldsmith's mayoral campaign and May losing her majority.
2. Cummings has only ever proved himself in referenda, where choice is binary. That is the only context in which his half-arsed game-theory strategies work. In situations with multiple moving parts, where he can lose voters to multiple directions, he is proving at best mediocre.
3. Incidentally, the reason Johnson is refusing to back down from the word "surrender", despite overwhelming pressure, and why it's been fully polled and tested might be, because they're already decided on the election campaign tagline "NO SURRENDER". So, he must protect it.
On SkyNews, Brendan O'Neill: "Something very odd happened today, which calls into question who is the supreme authority in this country. It no longer looks like it's the gov't."
"You don't know the first thing", is usually a figure of speech. With O'Neill, it's quite literal.
"You don't know the first thing", is usually a figure of speech. With O'Neill, it's quite literal.
You'd find "who is the supreme authority" in a Parliamentary Democracy in the first para of the Wiki page, Brendan. It would be the back cover synopsis of Parliamentary Democracy for Dummies.The first page of a UK Constitution for Toddlers pop-up book. IT'S IN THE FUCKING NAME.
There’s a sensible statement No.10 can make to pull back from the brink, along the lines of “Brexit is an unprecedented issue. It continues to test UK constitutional norms. While disappointed with the decision, we’re grateful for the clarity it provides and will act accordingly.”
Unfortunately, this administration is not known for “sensible”, so expect multiple dog-whistles about rich poshos trying to frustrate “the people”, the Supreme Court siding with wicked Scottish judges instead of great English ones, and Corbyn being Communist Poultry, ad nauseam.
Raab and Kwarteng will probably be the front guard.
THREAD: What a journey the Telegraph and its fellow Brexiter travellers have been on... In show biz we call this a “steep dramatic arc”.
1. 23/6/2016
1. 23/6/2016
2. 27/6/2019
3. 24/9/2016
1. Nobody “pulled Labour out”. That is a right-wing tabloid narrative that you shouldn’t be reinforcing. The talks were forced on May after three defeats, they were a PR exercise and they ended when the gov’t refused to shift any of its arbitrary red lines.
And it’s “reins”.
And it’s “reins”.
2. The future declaration is a loose, non-binding doc, as you know. Approving transitional agreement makes sense only if you’re 100% confident either that the next election will deliver a progressive gov’t or that Johnson can be trusted to deliver soft Brexit. I‘m not. @SKinnock
3. MPs have good reason not to trust a serially mendacious, opportunistic PM. The possibility a GE may force him into coalition with extreme elements is very real. I respect that you disagree, but stop presenting yours as, somehow, the only rational/honourable position. @SKinnock
The LibDems prefer a People’s Vote to a General Election acting as an unsatisfactory proxy second referendum. That is their first choice. But if an election is what we get, they are basically offering people the straightforward option to Remain. It’s really quite clear. 1/4
Otherwise, we end up in the ludicrous situation of two parties offering no-deal Brexit and everyone else offering Brexiters a second bite at the cherry, if they can’t get them elected. No. If they like Johnson’s plan, let them vote for him. If 17m turn out he’ll get 400 MPs. 2/4
I have absolutely zero problem with Johnson winning by a landslide, by the way, democratically speaking. I think it’s a disastrous choice, but at least there he would have a proper mandate and nowhere to hide from the consequences. Enough shilly-shallying. 3/4
Afternoon off, watching Hallmark movies, the moral of which uniformly appears to be: real fulfilment for a woman is not to be found in any city career, but in chasing some carpenter/handyman/potato grower/woodsman in a small town, even though you could tell he is gay from orbit.
So bad. So good.
Additional observation: so many of these people have explicitly Christmas-related jobs. What the feck do they do the rest of the year?
“Get a grip”, says person who last year wrote: “Millennials would be useless fighters, more interested in playing Pokemon Go on their iPhones. Come World War Three, you’ll find them all hiding on Jezza’s allotment.”
Can we not find a fast-track process where we crowdfund the £20k Charlotte will make up front, in exchange for her instantly peaking with some hot take about dead refugee children or gay cures, getting fired and disappearing again?
I mean, we all know where this career path leads. Even Charlotte knows. Must we go through the slow, painful two-three years of her desperately debasing herself in order to gain notoriety?
