# British Election thread 2019



## x65943 (Dec 11, 2019)

UK parliament is having an election this Thursday. Every seat of parliament is up for re-election.

The Conservatives are campaigning to "Get Brexit done"

Labour is campaigning to increase social services and for a confirmatory referendum of Labour Brexit vs Remain

The Liberal Democrats are campaigning as Remain

Many other parties such as Brexit, Greens, SNP, PC, Sinn Fein, DUP etc are also in the race but quite a bit behind in overall UK wide vote share (some due to regional campaigns and others due to low performance overall)

It's supposed to be a cold day, and current polls are showing the Conservatives winning an outright majority (although many races are within margin of error and too close to definitively call)

So what's your stance? Who are you rooting for? (If any). Do you think it's ridiculous 4 years on that Brexit is still dominating UK politics?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 11, 2019)

I ain't got a dog in the hunt and won't pretend to be informed on the issues. But the idea of having a second referendum on Brexit is perplexing. If they did that and the "remain" side won this time, will there be another one after that for 'best two out of three?' Seems only fair.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 11, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I ain't got a dog in the hunt and won't pretend to be informed on the issues. But the idea of having a second referendum on Brexit is perplexing. If they did that and the "remain" side won this time, will there be another one after that for 'best two out of three?' Seems only fair.


The argument is that the initial referendum was remain vs leave

However leaving can mean many different things - norway style, customs union alignment, hard brexit

For this reason some people believe it wasn't really a fair question as "leave" was effectively 100 options vs Remain being 1

It's like asking "what's your favorite color, any color from a box of crayons or teal?"

It's obvious in this case which side would be numerically more favored - as it means something different to everyone.

The same could be said about Brexit - and it's obvious why no deal can be made after all this time - all brexiters disagree on precisely what that means. To some norway style is not Brexit at all. This has led to deadlock in parliament - and indeed even the dismissal of cabinet members.

A second referendum wouldn't simply be leave vs stay again, but rather the best negotiated deal vs remain

This would squash the deadlock and finally end the brexit nightmare

I am not saying this is necessarily the only right answer, or even a right answer, but it's not simply "do over"

It's what the first referendum should have been in the first place.

Add to that that the proportion of those who would vote brexit this time has fallen to a minority (although a slim one). Should a populace who no longer wishes for something be forced to have it because they wanted it in the past? By that logic regular elections are "undemocratic" - after all, once elected shouldn't a politician have his seat for life? (Taking that position to an extreme to make a point.)

All in all I think it's a viable option - it's not as though the elected officials didn't already have the chance to "*Get Brexit Done" - they have been in power for about a decade straight.


----------



## Costello (Dec 11, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I ain't got a dog in the hunt and won't pretend to be informed on the issues. But the idea of having a second referendum on Brexit is perplexing. If they did that and the "remain" side won this time, will there be another one after that for 'best two out of three?' Seems only fair.


I have to say I agree with you, even though I was rooting for "remain" originally, it just doesn't make sense now. If you hold a second referendum, how does it hold any more value than the first? what makes it more legitimate? I mean, the people have voted already, get on with it. Let's see how much trouble it causes to the UK economy... or, well, maybe it'll do good, right? time will tell

edit: I typed this before seeing x's reply


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2019)

I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that I like nearly everything I've heard from Corbyn and the Labour party.  And their record largely shows that they practice what they preach, it's not just empty rhetoric like you hear from so many other parties and career politicians.  The workers of every country need to have a stake in shaping their governments and their futures, because if we continue allowing those born into obscene wealth to make all the decisions for us, this planet has maybe ten good years left in it tops.

Now, if I was looking at this through the selfish lens of what most benefits the US' interests in the UK, of course I'd say the Conservative party should win it.  A no-deal Brexit would give us tremendous leverage over Britain and allow for the exploitation of both their workers and healthcare system.  Even if I were to somehow profit from that personally it's not what I would want, of course, because it's morally and ethically abhorrent.

The entire concept of putting Brexit to a public "yes/no" vote was half-baked at best, and now that the shit is beginning to hit the fan, I think a second referendum will be necessary to assure that voters know exactly what they're getting themselves in to.  Every ballot needs a thorough and detailed guide included, outlining both the benefits and the consequences of each option.  And of course there needs to be a minimum of three options, closer to five or six would be optimal.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 11, 2019)

(note: not British here)
I'm torn between the 'L' parties. And I really would need to be a Briton to know the difference, because - for obvious reasons as a foreigner - my main motivation is about the brexit situation. And that's hardly fair because the party isn't (or shouldn't) "just" occupy themselves with the brexit. What else do they have on their proverbial menu?

Let's start with the less obvious choice: liberal democrats (libdems, though I'm not familiar enough with them to call 'em that). Their stance on brexit is refreshingly simple: "we've heard the brexit inquiry, but due to the hassle that followed upon attempting to get it done, we decided it's not worth pursuing it". In other words: they're pointing out that the brexit referendum never was a legally binding clause, so they can just ignore it. Of course not everyone's going to be happy with that stance, but then again...that's a given for most parties.
From what I gather, they are also pretty liberal (no...really  ), which is a plus for me. But the interview/article I read on them was...pretty weird. It was in an actual (Dutch) newspaper so I can't link to it, but it spoke with various inlanders basically saying "yeah, I dislike brexit and yeah they'd be the best choice for me...but there's no way they can make it so I'm voting something else!". So...either my news paper cherry picked some weird characters, or the party is a niche party that amounts to nothing (despite them...winning pretty big in the last election? I honestly can't follow  ).

The other choice would, of course, be labour. Also politically left, but I honestly can't say I'm a fan of their brexit ideology. For the longest time, the main government was all pursuing brexit and the opposition under Corbyn was mostly a "I would've negotiated better". Heck...I'm not even sure if the shred of news of Corbyn wanting to renegotiate with the EU YET AGAIN was still recent or not (if so, that torning would be over and I'd vote libdem all the way).




Hanafuda said:


> I ain't got a dog in the hunt and won't pretend to be informed on the issues. But the idea of having a second referendum on Brexit is perplexing. If they did that and the "remain" side won this time, will there be another one after that for 'best two out of three?' Seems only fair.


That would only be fair, indeed. In similar circumstances, of course. Let's see...

-if the bremainder would spend far more campaign money than allowed
-if they made promises about being part of the EU membership that the EU itself never was about
-if they dragged all sorts of emotional arguments into the mix ("it should be done for the independence of our nation"...that sort of fluff)
-if the disadvantages of being in the EU would be minimized or lied about
-if there'd be legal complications of being in the EU that would be dismissed as "easiest negotiations ever"...before it turns out there'd be a three year drag on negotiations in which there'd be more talks in tabloids than at the negotiation table
-<I could probably come up with some more>

...then yes. Absolutely. Best out of three would be preferred in that case. Heck...they can hold a referendum every three years for all I care.
I don't think it's likely to happen, though. People don't need to be told about how it's like to be in the EU because Britain is already in the EU. About the only complication of a bremain I can think of would be who would be filling in Farage's post in the EU.


----------



## Uiaad (Dec 11, 2019)

I fully contend that the intention was always to leave the EU even if the vote had gone the other way but it's about more than the dog's breakfast that is Brexit. The thing with Brexit is the amount of money we have flushed down the toilet when it should have been used at least attempting to repair the damage done to our crumbling schools, NHS and police force. The problem I have first and foremost is Boris Johnson. I wouldn't trust that man to open a can of beans that was already open. He's a moronic buffoon who should never have been allowed to have that level of responsibility and power. Corbyn I look at him and without even him open his mouth I know if he gets in he's gonna shaft the country. I tend to follow my gut a lot and that man is the wrong horse.   

Ultimately, I have already voted. I cast my vote on the 27th November ( postal vote ) I guess over the next couple of days we will find out which way the wind is blowing.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

Where is the option for "none"? I will not be voting, and I don't care if this makes me "part of the problem". Democracy is a sham devised by the establishment to placate the masses with the illusion of control. Meanwhile, politicians do whatever the fuck they want to increase their own personal wealth, power and status at the expense of the taxpayer. A vote is a vote _for_ a political party, and there is nobody to vote for. I will not patronise any of them with my vote. They are all lying, sociopathic cunts and I despise every single one of them. I am now making it my life's work to get my earnings below the income tax threshold so I do not have to pay them a single penny of tax. I want absolutely nothing to do with the government. They have nothing whatsoever to offer me, they do not represent me or my interests, and I do not require their influence. They can carry on without me fucking up the planet and everyone else's lives. It's not my problem.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 11, 2019)

I despise the SNP and will be voting Labour. I have and always will vote for them. It hugely saddens me that out of the 49 seats available in Scotland the SNP are projected to win at least 41 seats which works out at them winning 84% of the seats available here. Anyone voting for the SNP tomorrow please note that a vote for the SNP is basically a vote to keep that blundering baffon BoJo in power. You know the same very guy the whole of Scotland is constantly complaining about and hates with a passion yet I bet none of you SNP voters have the balls to get all tactical and vote Labour purely to get Bojo out of Number 10.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The entire concept of putting Brexit to a public "yes/no" vote was half-baked at best, and now that the shit is beginning to hit the fan, I think a second referendum will be necessary to assure that voters know exactly what they're getting themselves in to.  Every ballot needs a thorough and detailed guide included, outlining both the benefits and the consequences of each option.  And of course there needs to be a minimum of three options, closer to five or six would be optimal.


Is this sarcasm? I really can't tell.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

brexit was a tactical move by david cameron to prevent ukip from poaching tory voters. All of the rhetoric around it is completely meaningless, and there is no sound rationale for leaving the EU. we will leave, and we will be made an example of by the EU so that no other member states dare to try the same thing. our economy will suffer, our public services will deteriorate, and all because the toffs are scared of the racists. so long democracy. fuck hope.


----------



## leon315 (Dec 11, 2019)

i live in pizzalandia, here we have so many small parties (from 5% up to 25% of consent but never surpass 30%) which they do nuffin but saliva-battle whole the day, it's unbelievable that UK *outnumbered* Italy about Parties O.O!


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I ain't got a dog in the hunt and won't pretend to be informed on the issues. But the idea of having a second referendum on Brexit is perplexing. If they did that and the "remain" side won this time, will there be another one after that for 'best two out of three?' Seems only fair.



The 2016 referendum was technically the second one.

We now know that dark money was used to buy the result.

The liar we have running the country is contradicting his own plan in public. He's worse than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf who was filmed saying that there were no tanks, when you could actually see the tanks.

So yeah, without putting it back to the people then british politics is dead.


----------



## Viri (Dec 11, 2019)

arcanine said:


> we will leave, and we will be made an example of by the EU so that no other member states dare to try the same thing.


If you put it that way, that's quite scary, why would anyone wanna be in the EU, if they really had that mindset? You make the EU sound like the mob, lol.

As for the election, I have thoughts, but who gives a shit about mine? I don't live in the UK or even Europe.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 11, 2019)

arcanine said:


> brexit was a tactical move by david cameron to prevent ukip from poaching tory voters. All of the rhetoric around it is completely meaningless, and there is no sound rationale for leaving the EU. we will leave, and we will be made an example of by the EU so that no other member states dare to try the same thing. our economy will suffer, our public services will deteriorate, and all because the toffs are scared of the racists. so long democracy. fuck hope.


That's a pretty good summary of what happened. But how do you define democracy? If a (theoretical) country of racists want to leave the EU or do this and that. Is it not democratic? We should use a different word then. Demos means people/polulus.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 11, 2019)

None. Don't election nobody. They are the corrupted and don't trust them at all. None.

I just want Biritish to return to Europe.. Not Brexit. Thats all.


----------



## leon315 (Dec 11, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> None. Don't election nobody. They are the corrupted and don't trust them at all. None.
> 
> I just want Biritish to return to Europe.. Not Brexit. Thats all.


I THINK one of main reason UK wants the divorce is UK doesn't want to deal upcoming refugees, thus they want border closed.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That's a pretty good summary of what happened. But how do you define democracy? If a (theoretical) country of racists want to leave the EU or do this and that. Is it not democratic? We should use a different word then. Demos means people/polulus.


A referendum on a decision which was put to the public on the basis of speculation and propaganda with no due diligence on the consequences of the vote is not an expression of democracy by any definition of the word. It is yet another manipulation of people who are being intentionally stupefied by those who are in control. The conspiracy is real. Global politics is all about keeping people in their place. Only revolution can save us now.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 11, 2019)

leon315 said:


> I THINK one of main reason UK wants the divorce is UK doesn't want to deal upcoming refugees, thus they want border closed.


Their border is already closed, they have never been a part of the Schengen area. On top of this there is the channel that physically separates them from mainland Europe.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

Viri said:


> If you put it that way, that's quite scary, why would anyone wanna be in the EU, if they really had that mindset? You make the EU sound like the mob, lol.


What exactly do you expect to happen if britain leaves with an amazing deal which allows us free trade with the EU with no tariffs, no fees and none of the obligations? All of the other countries will want the same of course, and the whole union will collapse. So they are never going to give britain a good deal. They will humiliate us to ensure the other member states don’t ask for the same treatment. Anybody who cannot see this is irrational.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 11, 2019)

I don't think I am even registered to vote these days, and besides that I have never actually voted and at this point have seen more national elections where I could vote than when I was too young. Granted looking at the results of previous elections where I am these days it would not make a lot of odds.

Read the manifestos (or "contract with the people" as the case may be in the case of the Brexit party) of all of the even vaguely notable players, and then figured out what they are actually saying or is likely to actually happen because basic laws of finance, governing principles of law making in the country or physics. While I can't pretend to be upset they all seem to have gone in for fancy words and fun with numbers to obfuscate things and puff themselves up. While all of them have some things I would like to see happen they also all have some things I would be horrified see come to pass and operate on logic I find incredibly questionable, and histories and cronies not much better. To that end I can't say I am a fan of anybody running, and definitely not anybody with a chance of winning* (be the whole deal or any one country in the union). Nobody seems to take on the idea of ruling whilst listening to people that actually know what they speak about (be it drug laws, housing laws, industry laws, car laws, medical financial planning, infrastructure, education, environmental laws...) and are often actively clueless and dismissive of any issues I might like -- I am not liking the demise of free speech/rise of censorship in the UK, and the puppet masters for some parties are growing a bit too bold for my taste.
Don't think I even have a lesser of two evils type pick either as they are both doing nothing for me, albeit in slightly different ways. and general momentum means neither would get too much of a chance to hose it up too much more. If I have to have anything I want another hung parliament.

As far as leaving the EU I remain yet to be convinced it is a good course of action (leaving aside the possibilities as far as what path that might take -- Norway style being rather different to another member of the UN/WTO), though if leave was the result then do it well there lads. To that end I can also safely say none of the deals thus far presented have been any good either -- I want political/diplomatic hardball, not staring off into space and hoping it gets done by magic or that you just have to be there in there body but not mind (such things work well for boring school lessons, less in hardcore international politics) with "it'll be alright on the night" the guiding principle and plan. That said I have enjoyed seeing said politicos get some egg on their faces when their incompetence rises up to greet them, though if I had long term plans/care for the country or expectation of anything from the services the looming no lube rogering that the US, China and maybe Russia are preparing to give might concern (while there are bigger concerns then the US is likely to export its IP system as part of deals, mainly as they have before when dealing with other small countries, and that would be awful).

*haven't bothered to look at the polls to see what they say. But I do like the following video for explaining some of their quirks


I am also curious to see what will happen to any leaders following the results. Last time many were predicting the end of Jeremy Corbyn's tenure as leader of Labour, and it did seem plausible, but he seems to have hung in there instead (not that I am sure who they would replace him with, though purely as a "this would be utterly hilarious" type deal I would love to see what Diane Abbott makes of the role with the amount of drivel that comes out of her mouth most of the time). Similarly the Conservatives are also struggling to contain things with only the fear of the spoiler effect seemingly managing that one, and seeing their departing members say some of the things they have would be utterly historic if utterly historic were not a daily occurrence right now. Roll on the political blood sports and give me some nice stats and cool political manoeuvres using them and odd rules to look at.


----------



## Armadillo (Dec 11, 2019)

Rooting for a hung parliament here. Don't really like either of the main parties. Both support nonsense like the snoopers charter.

As for vote, safe Labour seat here (something like 70% of the vote), so doesn't really make much difference, Labour will take the seat. Wish we had a better system.


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2019)

*lol* (via fefe (german blog))



> The Coalition says the largely unregulated world of election ads bears little resemblance to one of the founding principles of retail advertising, namely that ads should be "legal, decent, honest and truthful".


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> *lol* (via fefe (german blog))
> 
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500


Like I said, democracy is an illusion


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 11, 2019)

arcanine said:


> we will leave, and we will be made an example of by the EU so that no other member states dare to try the same thing.



That tells ya something about who you're in bed with, huh. 

Reminds me of the old saying, "You can vote your country into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out."


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> That tells ya something about who you're in bed with, huh.
> 
> Reminds me of the old saying, "You can vote your country into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out."


It is symptomatic of a civilisation grown beyond its ability to self-regulate. Globalisation is the great evil. We are not supposed to live this way.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Is this sarcasm? I really can't tell.


What part of my statement appears sarcastic?  "Remain" is a fairly straightforward option which doesn't need a whole lot of explaining.  "Leave" can mean one of a hundred different things depending on how a deal is to be negotiated, or if one is to be negotiated at all.  There's also no question at this point that the Tories used deception and outright lies in order to convince people that the leave option would provide certain non-existent benefits to the UK.  There should be some way of holding them accountable for that, but it seems that responsibility now falls to the voters.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 11, 2019)

arcanine said:


> A referendum on a decision which was put to the public *on the basis of speculation and propaganda with no due diligence on the consequences of the vote* is not an expression of democracy by any definition of the word. It is yet another manipulation of people who are being intentionally stupefied by those who are in control. The conspiracy is real. Global politics is all about keeping people in their place. Only revolution can save us now.


That's exactly democracy. There are different positions. People propagate different policies and yes, sometimes deceive. That's what's happening in every democratic vote! In many cases though, it is not deception but the fact that nobody can tell what the future (or any given policy) will bring.


----------



## notimp (Dec 12, 2019)

arcanine said:


> Like I said, democracy is an illusion


Why, because  people cant trust ads?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What part of my statement appears sarcastic?  "Remain" is a fairly straightforward option which doesn't need a whole lot of explaining.  "Leave" can mean one of a hundred different things depending on how a deal is to be negotiated, or if one is to be negotiated at all.  There's also no question at this point that the Tories used deception and outright lies in order to convince people that the leave option would provide certain non-existent benefits to the UK.  There should be some way of holding them accountable for that, but it seems that responsibility now falls to the voters.


If my memory serves me right, the heated debate with all the different doom's day scenarios always implied a no-deal exit.
Even if you are for remain, sabotaging one's country's position in the negotiation (s. Theresa May) is a horrible idea. Once a country leaves and there is interest on both sides, new deals can be made.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 12, 2019)

Last poll before election.

Poll information

5% gap between Cons and Labour - probably erroneous, but if true, could indicate a hung parliament.

Tomorrow is going to be a very interesting day indeed.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If my memory serves me right, the heated debate with all the different doom's day scenarios always implied a no-deal exit.
> Even if you are for remain, sabotaging one's country's position in the negotiation (s. Theresa May) is a horrible idea. Once a country leaves and there is interest on both sides, new deals can be made.


The end game for the Tories has always been a no-deal Brexit, yes, but that's not something they were ever really honest about, especially early on.  As for making deals after the process of Brexit has already been completed: the UK would be in a much weaker negotiating position at that point, assuming they don't come crawling to the US or some other country for relief first.  Essentially, a no-deal Brexit would mean trading one master for another, and the UK would be surrendering even more of its autonomy in the process.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The end game for the Tories has always been a no-deal Brexit, yes, but that's not something they were ever really honest about, especially early on.  As for making deals after the process of Brexit has already been completed: the UK would be in a much weaker negotiating position at that point, assuming they don't come crawling to the US or some other country for relief first.  Essentially, a no-deal Brexit would mean trading one master for another, and the UK would be surrendering even more of its autonomy in the process.


What? Their end game has certainly not always been no deal. ERG perhaps, but Theresa May very obviously tried for years for a deal.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Dec 12, 2019)

It's important to remember that barring a couple of hardliners (like Boris Johnson, but not exclusively him), to my knowledge the majority of the British political parties don't want a Brexit.

If I recall correctly, the original intent was to hold the Brexit referendum, then lose the referendum and have Tories score easy votes in the next election. Of course, that backfired spectacularly, causing the current situation.

This is why it's taking three years by now and why the original referendum was so simplistic. No party really wants to leave since it's just overall a bad move, but at the same time nobody wants to take the risk at their political carreer and cancel it or hold a second referendum.


----------



## Flame (Dec 12, 2019)

Voted.

#team*Labour*


----------



## arcanine (Dec 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Why, because  people cant trust ads?


because it is predicated on lies and propaganda


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 12, 2019)

Flame said:


> Voted.
> 
> #team*Labour*


Same fuck BoJo and fuck the SNP 
#team*Labour *


----------



## fatherjack (Dec 12, 2019)

Voted already last week via post - so lazy 

I predict conservative win today. You only have to look at that colour map on tv to realise that the majority of British voters (who vote!) are centre/right. Think LibDems are also in for a good night as strong 'remain' movement.

Corbyn is almost unelectable! Keir Starmer would stand a better chance as party leader, but that said, it SHOULD be about policy not person - where's Ronnie Reagan when you need him

Either way, looks like another four years of parliament not delivering their election lies, public getting so pissed off they end up voting for their old favourite.....CHANGE


----------



## FGFlann (Dec 12, 2019)

It's tough being a dissenting voter in a seat that has been held by a single party for 50 years. But who knows... Maybe this year will be the year.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 12, 2019)

Ok for anyone still to vote please remember that former Tory Prime Minister John Major and former Tory deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine aren't backing Boris Johnson today. Guess who is though? Katie Hopkins who as we all know is hugely transphobic and Tommy Robinson who as we all know is hugely racist. Please think very carefully when you vote about what direction you want this country to go in.


Anyhoo if you love/like or even vaguely care about Great Britain, vote Labour. Or if Labour aren't likely to win in your area vote tactically to keep BoJo and the Tories out. Thanks.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 12, 2019)

Is Tommy Robinson racist? I don't know that I have seen that qualified. Don't know if I would share a beer with the guy but racism is a charge nobody has ever quite managed in anything like recent times.
Don't know who the other one is. Quick search says random newspaper commentator type.

Also why would people backing them matter? Though if they do then is John Major someone to look up to? His history as far as the party is not great (the labour landslide that ended him was said to follow a rather out of touch series of policies even at the time). Heseltine not backing him is an interesting one though, and not one I would have put money on seeing back when he was rising up.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 12, 2019)

They are all cunts and it makes no difference


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

x65943 said:


> What? Their end game has certainly not always been no deal. ERG perhaps, but Theresa May very obviously tried for years for a deal.


Considering the Tories voted against every deal she could possibly come up with, it felt like May was brought in solely to obfuscate their true intentions.  Johnson was seemingly the man behind the curtain the entire time, and from my perspective it's always been clear his objective was forcing a no-deal Brexit.  I'm sure he and several others within the upper echelons of UK's Conservatives stand to profit from that outcome.


----------



## FGFlann (Dec 12, 2019)

Exit poll predicts 71 seat loss for Labour. =o God damn.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 12, 2019)

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773

Pack up now boys, the cons are set to win a landslide


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

FGFlann said:


> Exit poll predicts 71 seat loss for Labour. =o God damn.





x65943 said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773
> 
> Pack up now boys, the cons are set to win a landslide


Ouch.  All that's left now is to wonder if the impending recession spurred on by a no-deal Brexit will be limited to the UK, or if it'll cause a domino effect for other nations too.


----------



## Flame (Dec 12, 2019)

fucking ghost of Christmas future you fucking fuck.


bah humbug


----------



## KiiWii (Dec 12, 2019)

Waits for the “Russian involvement” claims.

UK is fucked yet again


----------



## x65943 (Dec 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ouch.  All that's left now is to wonder if the impending recession spurred on by a no-deal Brexit will be limited to the UK, or if it'll cause a domino effect for other nations too.


Global recession happens about every 10 years

We are due - last one was 2009


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Global recession happens about every 10 years


You're right, but that hasn't always been the case.  It's a relatively recent trend that has a lot to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars which get sucked out of the economy annually and then just sit stagnant in tax havens.  As I said before, there are a lot of people who stand to gain a lot of money from a no-deal Brexit.  None of whom are common folk, of course.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're right, but that hasn't always been the case.  It's a relatively recent trend that has a lot to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars which get sucked out of the economy annually and then just sit stagnant in tax havens.  As I said before, there are a lot of people who stand to gain a lot of money from a no-deal Brexit.  None of whom are common folk, of course.


Right right

Man, imagine the election in 5 years when the UK is England + Wales. At this rate the Tories are set to rule another century.


----------



## fadx (Dec 12, 2019)

Fuck Boris the fucking kid slide tackling, mum's haircut cunt.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Right right
> 
> Man, imagine the election in 5 years when the UK is England + Wales. At this rate the Tories are set to rule another century.


Maybe, assuming the workers of the world haven't been pushed to the point of violent revolution by then.  

Things are about to get really rough in the UK, and I'd recommend anyone who is reliant on NHS for survival set up a gofundme page now to get ahead of the curve.  American-style healthcare is coming.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 12, 2019)

FGFlann said:


> Exit poll predicts 71 seat loss for Labour. =o God damn.




Wow. That qualifies for, "Boom!" ... but in a bigger font than possible on GBAtemp.


----------



## Tarmfot (Dec 13, 2019)

At the end Brexit will not exist. Perhaps a simulation of a Brexit but not a Brexit.

People who rules the world don't like Brexit.
It doesn't matter who you will vote.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 13, 2019)

Tarmfot said:


> People who rules the world don't like Brexit.


I really wish that was true. The people who rule the world are narcissistic, sociopathic, greedy, self-important, egomaniacal nationalists. They will stop at nothing to hold on to power and wealth. That means keeping the population poor and uneducated because it is not in their interests for the population to become enlightened. Brexit will happen, and it will be ugly. Our economy will suffer, and our public services will deteriorate. That means poorer health and education across the nation (with the exception of those who are already wealthy enough that they don't need the public services anyway). The elites will retain their power over the population and they will not care even a little bit at the cost to the majority or the disgusting nationalist agenda that they are perpetuating. This degradation will continue until we are so desperate that we will sell our public services to anybody willing to take on such a risky investment. Which means somebody who has enough capital to lose if it falls apart. In other words, america or china. The uk is over. Scotland know it, which is why they are already (before the polls have even closed) talking about a second referendum on independence from the uk. Northern ireland will be next, because they want to remain in the EU. And Wales will jump ship when they realise that england cannot provide for them any more. Like everything, we will fall apart and be sold off piece by piece. Time to emigrate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That's exactly democracy


It fucking isn't. Democracy means delegation of power to the people. And if you predicate your manifesto on lies and propaganda then this is giving the illusion of control, which is fundamentally disempowering. It is a perversion of what democracy is supposed to be.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> There are different positions. People propagate different policies


Telling the population you will do something and then doing something entirely different is neither a position nor a policy. It is simply deception.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> and yes, sometimes deceive


And this should be treated as election fraud. Lying in propagandic electioneering in order to gain power over a population and then reneging on your pledges should be treated just the same as if a member of the public coerces a vote from other members of the public. Did you know that that behaviour is illegal? I cannot walk in to a polling station and tell other people "If you vote for party x, terribly outcome y will happen! You should vote for party z instead!" THIS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. And so should it be if political bodies do it.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That's what's happening in every democratic vote!


Well obviously it is happening, but that doesn't make it right and sure as fucking shit doesn't make it democracy.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> In many cases though, it is not deception but the fact that nobody can tell what the future (or any given policy) will bring.


If you really believe that then you are ignorant. We have already found that a large proportion of the election propaganda put out during this most recent UK election was false. Lies. Propaganda. Manipulation. It was not "oops, we thought we'd have the money for this but we had to spend it on that so now we can't". It was telling people lies to garner their votes.

Wake the fuck up. The conspiracy is real, and we are all the victims. There is no way out now except revolution.


----------



## Tarmfot (Dec 13, 2019)

arcanine said:


> I really wish that was true. The people who rule the world are narcissistic, sociopathic, greedy, self-important, egomaniacal nationalists. They will stop at nothing to hold on to power and wealth. That means keeping the population poor and uneducated because it is not in their interests for the population to become enlightened. Brexit will happen, and it will be ugly. Our economy will suffer, and our public services will deteriorate. That means poorer health and education across the nation (with the exception of those who are already wealthy enough that they don't need the public services anyway). The elites will retain their power over the population and they will not care even a little bit at the cost to the majority or the disgusting nationalist agenda that they are perpetuating. This degradation will continue until we are so desperate that we will sell our public services to anybody willing to take on such a risky investment. Which means somebody who has enough capital to lose if it falls apart. In other words, america or china. The uk is over. Scotland know it, which is why they are already (before the polls have even closed) talking about a second referendum on independence from the uk. Northern ireland will be next, because they want to remain in the EU. And Wales will jump ship when they realise that england cannot provide for them any more. Like everything, we will fall apart and be sold off piece by piece. Time to emigrate.



Sorry for my engrish.
People who rule the world are not nationalist because they want to rule the world. They need structures like UE. 
Less independent countries implies less people to buy, etc...
Different peoples, cultures are a wall to their power. Because they need to adapt to them in some way.
Fronteirs and walls make this difficult to them.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

fadx said:


> Fuck Boris the fucking kid slide tackling, mum's haircut cunt.


I liked this for all the wrong reasons. lol. Thanks for that.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 13, 2019)

Flame said:


> fucking ghost of Christmas future you fucking fuck.
> 
> 
> bah humbug


Poor Santa Bender, giving out wonderful gifts to all but receiving none , I give you American hug  now you owe me $12812382939

So does this mean UK gonna be America 2.0?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 13, 2019)

Labour deserve the kicking they will get this morning. 

they said they would honour the result of the referendum and then tried to BS people with their second referendum of remain or remain deal. 

spend, spend and spend, £100 Billion+  and  it will take every tax payer and another Tory government to pay the debts off after Labour  get kicked out again and leave another note like the one below.







£68bn for the WASPI women because Labour  think morally they should pay them even thou a court went against the women. they've known since 1995 that there would be changes. most of these women could have stayed on in their jobs they didn't have to retire.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 13, 2019)

oh dear Jo Swinson the leader of the  Liberal democrats who wanted to revoke article 50 has been beaten  by the SNP  goodbye


----------



## x65943 (Dec 13, 2019)

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced he will resign shortly


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced he will resign shortly


Regrettable, but in hindsight it seems he did make a big mistake in not taking a concrete stance on Brexit.  People want simple solutions to complex problems, and while that's not the way the world works, politics does sometimes require that type of reductionist presentation in order to get the public on your side.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Regrettable, but in hindsight it seems he did make a big mistake in not taking a concrete stance on Brexit.  People want simple solutions to complex problems, and while that's not the way the world works, politics does sometimes require that type of reductionist presentation in order to get the public on your side.



I don't think it was down to him, it was members of the Labour party like Watson who made it party policy who wanted  a confirmatory or peoples referendum. 

I wrote to my MP asking them not to break their pledge to honour the result of the referendum as they said they would but she and the Labour party did.

I'm in a safe Labour seat but her majority was cut from 8,000 to just 3,000 and the Brexit party got over 3,000 votes, so maybe if the Brexit party had not stood in the election it would have been the first time since WW2 that the city I live in had a Tory MP.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 13, 2019)

Tarmfot said:


> Sorry for my engrish.
> People who rule the world are not nationalist because they want to rule the world. They need structures like UE.
> Less independent countries implies less people to buy, etc...
> Different peoples, cultures are a wall to their power. Because they need to adapt to them in some way.
> Fronteirs and walls make this difficult to them.


No, you are wrong. These people know that actual world domination on an individual level is impossible. They know that expanding the sphere of influence of their own political organisation will not work, or that if it does it will not result in a significant increase in their own personal wealth, power and status. They are preserving their power and wealth at a level which is sustainable. Because we are all sustaining it. Nationalism is beneficial to these people because seeds of mistrust in foreign countries grow into trunks and branches of loyalty to one’s own country and by extension the party. Do not make the mistake of believing that these people care about individuals, or countries, or the world. They do not care at all. Not one little bit. About anybody or anything which does not directly contribute to their own personal accumulation of wealth and power.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

So the people wanting to rule the world, actually dont want to rule the wold, because they know it isnt sustainable. Got it. 

God the simplifications on cornflakes boxes get dumber every year... 

Alternatively - the people wanting to rule the world hate nationalism, so everyone vote far right. And pry the UK out of the EU, because its just the right thing to do. Got it. 
--

In my concept of the world it looks something like - neither globalists nor national populists care the least about uneducated people in shrinking societies.

National politics - to globalists look like a folk festival.
Geopolitics to nationalists - like something they cant compute.


There is this notion on the left, that just further, and tighter integration (cultural unification) will solve all problems. And it was so believeable, that the social democratic left is now a minority party pretty much across the entirety of europe.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> So the people wanting to rule the world, actually dont want to rule the wold, because they know it isnt sustainable. Got it.
> 
> God the simplifications on cornflakes boxes get dumber every year...


I never said they rule the world individually. They own the world collectively and are each hoarding their share.

Nice try undermining my comment with your snide remark. Unfortunately for you this is so transparently intellectually bankrupt that it is easily dismissed as playground taunting. Keep up the good work!


----------



## FGFlann (Dec 13, 2019)

There is nothing good to say about Jeremy Corbyn and this shameless, disastrous experiment of a campaign. A man who believed so ardently in a Britain outside of Europe threw away his principles simply so he could oppose the government of the day, rather than serve the needs of the people he would represent. The result for all to see was a weak man with nothing to believe in, puppeteered by his subordinates, peddling smears to his prospective electorate instead of substance.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

arcanine said:


> I never said they rule the world individually. They own the world collectively and are each hoarding their share.
> 
> Nice try undermining my comment with your snide remark. Unfortunately for you this is so transparently intellectually bankrupt that it is easily dismissed as playground taunting. Keep up the good work!


I fail to match your intellect on "the people owning the world" work together in a club, where they try to wall out the good peoples unification of the worlds effort, because ruling the world through unifying it further would not be rulling the world at all. It would be breaking the shackles of nationalists - to finally not ruling the world unified at all.

Owning the world people ideologically fought by the right. (Unifying socialists!)
Owning the world people ideologically fought by the left. (Unifying nationalits - having split up their stakes)

No, checks out. *sarcasm*


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

Meanwhile, on a much more real planet closer to ours:

International power balance is shifting.
WTO has problems to remain functioning.
Transatlantic interest groups try to tie together "western" alliances. To keep mattering at all.
At the same time everyone is trying to find the jumping off point to where their allegiances should shift towards east asia.
Russia is still trying to somehow matter at all.
Economic growth is on a decline.
Everyone in the west is selling "decline - but with nature like" programs to their constituencies. (Openly - or less openly.)
Everyone is still mostly investing in second world nations.
Economically, there are no national boundries anymore - whatsoever.
At the same time, we see tariffs return, in the US as well as in the EU. So 'protectionism' returns, but we don't know how it will look like. In its current configuration it looks like its there to 'safeguard' the big economic blocks (USA, EU, China) from economic actions made by one of the others.
China very much is interested in having its political influence sphere grow larger at the moment. US just got UK back. EU currently doesnt want to expand.


So here is the deal. No economicly viable venture, that is big enough to matter in any way - is national anymore. Nobody of importance thereby cares about nations anymore. (At least in the EU where nations are smaller.)

So the idea - that you have to transition those national powerplayers that in unison 'own the world". Is flawed.

So the idea - that you have to return to national structures again, so people within them will matter more. Is flawed.


Its as simple as the following. If you are not interested in a transnational world, you are the dumb peasant thats carried along as dead weight. You can shout as long as you want that you are poor and want to matter more - no one, will care. Neither of the fractions you two made out as 'owning the world' (while not describing who you mean - thats just Disney level villain - in a fantasy abstraction..  ).

But Boris will build a new hospital in his home county like, to then merge economies with the US, and facilitate new economic ventures in Malaysia.

If your political horizon is we must gain, or prevent one world rule. Em yeah. You get a hospital - if you live where Boris lives. Isnt that something? That - and you have prevented one world rule!

Btw. if - regardless of what you are doing, you havent prevented one world rule in the next 100 years, drop me a PN, I'll buy you dinner.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Johnson was seemingly the man behind the curtain the entire time


Bojo?

At least google his political adviser.
Dominic Cummings

If you have more time: https://jonworth.eu/dominic-cummings-odysseanproject-deletes-twitter-account-piecing-back-together/

Every 'charismatic head of a party' is just that, a charismatic head of a party. A face for people that need faces to drive their political voting decision.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 13, 2019)

Hey Nicola Sturgeon you can take your bloody indyref2 and shove it right up your rear-end.


notimp said:


> Bojo?
> 
> At least google his political adviser.
> Dominic Cummings
> ...


And whats really worse is that Dominic Cummings is actually a bigger cunt than BoJo. 

As you said Dominic Cummings is the one telling BoJo what to say and do.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

No Cummings is whos telling him what to say or do to get the best public reaction.
Remember that hes still part of a party? 

Economic and power (as in to be in power for a longer time) interests usually drive party behavior.

So. In every party usually you have splitter groups depending on their interests, that usually get leveled out, but in the case of Brexit where too dividing for the Tories to integrate them within their pwn party. So you had splittering fractions (new parties), that drew traction. So at some point - Tories shifted to still matter. This is political change in action.

There is no one planning mastermind in the form of Bojo - now having achieved his goal, there are several competing fractions each one of them looking for a new model to convince society at large.


Also - (as a slight analogy to how russia 'influenced' US elections (they spread rageout PR on both sides)). The more you tend to press how incredibly divided societies are on current political issues, the more they tend to vote structurally conservative. (Just as a small note.)

edit: Let him explain in his own words.


----------



## Harumyne (Dec 13, 2019)

Oh yay, we have another arms dealer as our PM.

Labour would have been an optimal result, merely because they may have done something different to the past 8 years of status quo.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 13, 2019)

@notimp who do you think is bankrolling big government? Do you really think it is tax payers, who cost governments money in the services they require? Or do you think it might be the corporations who pay trillions in “donations” to governments in exchange for blind eyes being turned to their despicable behaviour towards people, other animals and the environment? You want to know who is in control, look at who is paying the fucking bill.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Dec 13, 2019)

arcanine said:


> Wake the fuck up. The conspiracy is real, and we are all the victims. There is no way out now except revolution.


I'm not going to argue with you about theoretical frameworks of democracy or any other term (a la "this was/is not real communism, Islam, ..."). I don't care.
There is no doubt that an international elite is conspiring with many governments to suck dry the common people. It became especially obvious following the 2008 crisis (which made certain people even richer and common people poorer).
I gradually noticed it in my early 20s. I find it shocking that many common people who are well into their 50s still believe in the illusion and want to spread "democracy" around the world.


----------



## FGFlann (Dec 13, 2019)

I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

arcanine said:


> @notimp who do you think is bankrolling big government? Do you really think it is tax payers, who cost governments money in the services they require? Or do you think it might be the corporations who pay trillions in “donations” to governments in exchange for blind eyes being turned to their despicable behaviour towards people, other animals and the environment? You want to know who is in control, look at who is paying the fucking bill.


I'm positive that big government gets payrolled by taxpayers. If you are still campaigning its different. 

The video I posted above is properly useful to understand the process, btw. You all are one click away to understanding politics. 

Such a tough ask though.. Click on that video... I mean, you could be watching american gladiators instead.. 

edit: Sponsored by Ogilvy


----------



## arcanine (Dec 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> I'm positive that big government gets payrolled by taxpayers. If you are still campaigning its different.
> 
> The video I linked is properly useful to understand the process, btw. You all are one click away to understanding politics.
> 
> Such a touch ask though..  Click on that video... I mean, you could be watching american gladiators instead..


Another nice attempt at undermining me. I don’t watch TV, I read. And if you want to believe that an awareness that the planet is being controlled by Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, Unilever, Facebook, Google, Amazon et al represents a misunderstanding of the nature of politics then that is absolutely fine by me. I don’t care, believe what you want. It is just so obvious that it astonishes me that somebody who seems quite intelligent from the way you write cannot (or will not) see it. A YouTube video is not going to counteract the mountains of evidence that government lobbyists are getting their way time and time again thanks to their generous “donations”, and in return are being allowed to conduct themselves appallingly and in ways which take advantage of everybody and everything.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

I mostly watch videos these days. And of course read papers (international spread). Dont hate. 

If you are a structurally important company, you get a say in the political process through lobbying. And in the US also through capaign financing (other countries have spending limits). Also you can pay for politicians favors by employing them after their hay day (revolving door). You dont pay them while they are in office though. If you would - that would be structural corruption. Thats illegal.

Companies are not that dumb. (Not in western political structures.)

If you are exceedingly dumb - you might lend a private jet to your best friend, political decision maker, and if he's even dumber he might take you up on the offer.

Watch the video above, read through the https://gbatemp.net/threads/corrupt-politicians-extortion-money.535652/ thread. Thats all thats needed, really.

edit: Theres also a 'sidejob circuit' that might be seen as aiding structural corruption - but generally speaking companies dont straight up buy (active) politicians in western countries.
-

How is good lobbying done? You create exclusive clubs. You meet people at fancy dinners. You talk about issues. You (company) write law proposals. Maybe you even can finance a few media campaigns. And if you are a structurally important company, you have more access, and your proposals have more weight.

I make that distinction.


----------



## matthi321 (Dec 13, 2019)

so when is he gonna delay brexit again?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced he will resign shortly


Did he? Most things are reporting him potentially hanging on until the end of next year for their next leader pick (but more likely early next year), unless the National Executive (the labour party's leadership) boot him sooner.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

So shocking. The Conservative party won after the Liberal Democrat party refused to go through with something that Britain voted for.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> So shocking. The Conservative party won after the Liberal party refused to go through with something that Britain voted for.


The liberal party is a whole other party.

Also that must get really confusing for you when you try to follow Australian politics.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> The liberal party is a whole other party.
> 
> Also that must get really confusing for you when you try to follow Australian politics.



Funny. Sorry I wasn't accurate, I figured anyone with a brain would be able to figure out I was referring to the "Liberal Democrats" when I stated Liberal.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> Funny. Sorry I wasn't accurate, I figured anyone with a brain would be able to figure out I was referring to the "Liberal Democrats" when I stated Liberal.


I know liberal is your favourite snarl word and probably presumed cause of all the ills in the world from the extinction of the dinosaurs on down but still found it amusing.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I know liberal is your favourite snarl word and probably presumed cause of all the ills in the world from the extinction of the dinosaurs on down but still found it amusing.



You're the one who thought the elections were in Australia.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> So shocking. The Conservative party won after the Liberal Democrat party refused to go through with something that Britain voted for.


The lib dems had zero chance of winning from the beginning.

It's Labour who had a chance to win if they sorted themselves out.


----------



## Uiaad (Dec 13, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The lib dems had zero chance of winning from the beginning.




Let's face facts tho with the way current systems work, it's always gonna be a two party race - the other parties just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining enough voters to make a significant difference


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Dec 13, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The lib dems had zero chance of winning from the beginning.
> 
> It's Labour who had a chance to win if they sorted themselves out.


@cots thinks Labour = Liberal Democrats.


----------



## Essasetic (Dec 13, 2019)

I'll be honest. There was no good party to vote for this election.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 13, 2019)

Uiaad said:


> Let's face facts tho with the way current systems work, it's always gonna be a two party race - the other parties just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining enough voters to make a significant difference


The UK needs STV like in Ireland


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2019)

Uiaad said:


> Let's face facts tho with the way current systems work, it's always gonna be a two party race - the other parties just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining enough voters to make a significant difference


In the broad strokes then sure it will never resemble what some kind of transferable vote will achieve but given said other parties either mean regional places get noted lest you suffer the spoiler effect -- the SNP's rise in Scotland this last few decades pretty much came at the cost of labour's Scottish base, and policy wise is mostly just labour and a bit more still* with a hardon for some kind of Scottish independence/devolution), and gives something of an indicator of where your party should be heading if it is to stick with the will of the people (most alt parties tending to be more or less extreme versions of the main parties, though occasionally with a notable difference, and can also be used tactically against your opponents). This also on top of the coalition thing which quite a few of the last few governments have been based around.

* https://www.snp.org/general-election-2019/ if you want a read there. If you skip over the Scotland for Scotland parts (or possibly replace with UK) and imagine red instead of yellow can you not see it easily as a labour one?


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

Uiaad said:


> Let's face facts tho with the way current systems work, it's always gonna be a two party race - the other parties just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining enough voters to make a significant difference


Lets face it, this is not how it works.

Its just, that in british parliament, if you have 43% of the vote, you get 56% of the seats (weighted - so a group of countries, with many different parties becomes governable through a parliamental system). Also, even then to change some things you need a 2/3s majority - in which case 56% wont do it.

Its always just one or the other isn't a case in any parlamental democracy other than the US (?).


Also lets face it - people here have successfully buried a video where Boris Johnsons political adviser tells you, yes - we segmented out our audience in targetable junks using metrics derived from machine learning, then tested our slogans on a subset of multiple thousand facebook users as to what would work, then spread lies (TURKEY next in EU!), then got a face, because of some 'complicated party internal stuff' and then pulled a stunt (bus) to get free media coverage. We did that on the cheap, then we sunk in all of our advertising budget in the last week, and especially in the last two days. In facebook ads. Targeted.

And we even used phrasing, that we knew would trigger associations towards 'getting a thing back' - that never neccessarily was about 'getting a thing back'.

And yes, we especially used anything that would work, based on our scientific research (behavioral psychology), and yes - it only could work, because we played "fear of a breaking health system" against "xenophobia" against a latent hate (2008) against Londons banking sector, and yes - it only did  work, because we could address all three of those.

Otherwise the 'its to your economic detriment' messaging from the other side would have prevailed.

There was no ideological underpinning, it simply was opportunistic to the core. ("I didnt want to do it first, but when I looked at how divided britain was about underlying issues - that werent addressed at the time, I though - hey, maybe its worth a shot") And it was done with billionaire financing for good meassure.

The guy speaks at an Ogilvy conference called "Nudgefest", for gods sake.

And the first audience question he gets (in a reddit style upvote system) is - do you regret what you have done?


So if you all dont want to talk about how this was done, and rather talk about anything else - you are a right wing idealist?

Also remember, when we told you six months back that this is how it was done? Because we did.

All of you have this information one click on youtube away. I prompted you twice to watch it. And all you got as a reaction were some idiot extremists trying to burry it with 'a video wont change my political position' - and it worked.

This was my own test - if society really can be that stupid - and nothing can be surfaced on facebook style 'opinion feeds anymore' and yes, thats the case. If you flood a posting with emotional opinion porn - it doesnt matter what anyone posts - anything is too high effort to check out, compared to just posting your ad hock emotions.

None of you identified, that that was what it was.

Now go back and watch it.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 13, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The lib dems had zero chance of winning from the beginning.
> 
> It's Labour who had a chance to win if they sorted themselves out.



well they went from saying they would honour the result of the referendum to trying to fix a new referendum with remain or remain, when they did that many lost trust in them.

it's good to see many of  those who said they would honour the result and then wanted a 'peoples referendum' or 'confirmatory referendum' have been given the boot, eg The Labour party, Anna Soubry, Jo Swnson,chuka umunna, pitty  David Lammy was not one of them.

if the Brexit party had stood down completely Labour would have lost many more seats, like the 'safe' Labour seat where I live.

well there is a bit of hope for Labour


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

The going back on the referendum efforts were always stupid. Kind of.

But the referendum result was cheated with facebook engineering of consent. Dont bury the lead.

This is the video you want to watch.



Not some right wing outrage stir porn, that was just posted to deflect.

This (^) is your 'nationalistic integrity'.

And more so, in the week before the current election you pushed, just how divided the country was - targeted as well, little doubt, and that was enough to produce another conservative majority (to just get it over with). Remember how polling hadn't shown the outcome until a day before the election?

Yes, thats what facebook advertising can do for you.  Mobilize people with targeted messaging within two days. No political deliberation, just playing to peoples limbic systems.

And how truthful was the messaging?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500

Ups. Democracy is over.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 14, 2019)

Protesting because the election didn't go as they expected. Can't accept any outcome except the one where they get what they want. 

I know a few words for this type behavior and they're not complimentary.


----------



## notimp (Dec 14, 2019)

Eh...

Protests now, actually might be whats needed. but for a different reason. Here is the German perspective - Der Spiegel, just coined the phrase 'the gease voted for christmas'.

So the thing currently is - that you gave the tories an absolute majority - and you gave it to a guy thats from the 'experimental' fractions, so no one is too sure what he is going to do - despite Brexit.

So Brexit is a done deal now. European newspapers all over the place are printing headlines 'the pro european narrative in GB is no more'.

But.

UK currently has a big issue with income disparity, a high fraction of poor people, and due to Brexit will go into another recession mid term (same as the EU, not trying to play games here). And in those times, you voted in a Tory who is by no means a centrist. So what we are hearing through the grapevine is, that he could push further market liberalization. Alienate scottish interests, and just go full free market lackey. This eventually will give you an advantage economically, but poor people will suffer even more.

So now is the time to plead, that thats not happening. Hence - demonstrations.

The question thats now open is, will he repair the cleft within society - or double down.

What especially baffles liberal elites in europe currently, is why so many people in those elections f.e. still voted for the lib dems - this was a deciding election on your political future - and many people wasted their vote by voting for a party that had no chance of mattering in the current situation. To which I reply - hey if you run your elections on fake info on facebook... (  )


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> Eh...
> 
> What especially baffles liberal elites in europe currently, is why so many people in those elections f.e. still voted for the lib dems - this was a deciding election on your political future - and many people wasted their vote by voting for a party that had no chance of mattering in the current situation. To which I reply - hey if you run your elections on fake info on facebook... (  )



the Lib Dems were the only party that wanted to revoke article 50 , then when they realised that was not popular with the voters they decided to change it to a referendum but maybe it was too late and the damage was done.

as for wasted votes why didn't the remoaners vote for them ?, there are enough tactical voting websites out there for remoaners. 

why didn't the Lib Dems suppoters use tactical voting and back a Labour candidate instead,  which might have beaten the Tory one. was it Swinsons fault saying she wouldn't support a Tory or Labour gov ?

Labour Supporters in the North were prepared to go against a lifetime of voting Labour to back the Tories to get Brexit. 

you had a million or so people march thru London supporting remain yet they were beaten by Brexit voters.  for what ever reasons the remoaners lost and its game over for them now..


----------



## notimp (Dec 14, 2019)

Maybe people voted for lib dems, so they wouldnt have to vote for labor, who knows (until voter stream analysis). Lost wine. I'll have forgotten it by tomorrow.  It's just it seems like people didnt realize the weight of that election - somehow..  Thats why its a little odd. but just a little.  (The thing is lib dems effectively gained voters. The percentage value is low enough, but they actually gained voters... Maybe people didnt realize how the weighing in their voting system works..  Or they wanted to be libdems in a Brexit London, dont know..  )


----------



## notimp (Dec 16, 2019)

Here a more detailed Breakdown of the Vote Leave position at the time (2016). Interesting as well. Stick to it till the end, interesting snippets of information mostly get layered in towards the end. (Appart from a full (?) set of investors being listed in the middle of it, if you are into that sort of stuff.  ) 


Title of the video is horrible btw.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 17, 2019)

Okay... I'm late to the party, but to be honest I don't really know what to add.

It's no lie : I don't like the election results, but I've got to admit I was wrong. I was honestly convinced that the bremainders had become a minority since that referendum the years ago. At least these election results show that there is genuine interest from the people in getting brexit done (1). I respect their opinion  to be wrong  to do whatever the fuck they want to do.

Best of luck, UK-ians. 

(1): okay... Scotland not withstanding. But they can't hold the rest of the UK hostage because they don't want to leave


----------



## x65943 (Dec 17, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... I'm late to the party, but to be honest I don't really know what to add.
> 
> It's no lie : I don't like the election results, but I've got to admit I was wrong. I was honestly convinced that the bremainders had become a minority since that referendum the years ago. At least these election results show that there is genuine interest from the people in getting brexit done (1). I respect their opinion  to be wrong  to do whatever the fuck they want to do.
> 
> ...


The get Brexit done crowd got about 46% of the vote.

The second referendum/cancel Brexit crowd got over 50%.

It's still about half and half - the only reason the Tories won so many seats is because of FPTP voting system they have got in the UK. They won fair and square but the winning party getting so many seats cannot be said to truly represent the will of the people - who have been shown to now slightly support remain.

I just hope Labour now understands the UK needs to reform voting laws and step into the 21st century.


----------



## Viri (Dec 17, 2019)

FGFlann said:


> I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay.


I don't like the fact that my state has an air force base, that is "accidentally" putting that foam that fire fighters use into our water. It's causing cancer left and right in a small town near me.


Spoiler



https://www.nbcnews.com/health/canc...s-drinking-water-near-military-bases-n1101736


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 17, 2019)

x65943 said:


> The get Brexit done crowd got about 46% of the vote.
> 
> The second referendum/cancel Brexit crowd got over 50%.
> 
> ...



I wonder how many people didn't vote because after more than 3 years were still in the EU?, I've seen a few people on tv saying they will never vote again because the first referendum has not been carried out

after 3 years of sabotage by MP's  and kicking the can down the road with all the threats of drug and food shortages and massive job losses I'm surprised its still as high as 46% who still want to leave.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 17, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> I wonder how many people didn't vote because after more than 3 years were still in the EU?, I've seen a few people on tv saying they will never vote again because the first referendum has not been carried out
> 
> after 3 years of sabotage by MP's  and kicking the can down the road with all the threats of drug and food shortages and massive job losses I'm surprised its still as high as 46% who still want to leave.


Same could be said about remainers not voting


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 17, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Same could be said about remainers not voting



no because some who voted to leave  have  lost trust in Politicians and the system, while  remainers  have a reason to vote because they have been given a second chance to vote for a party to cancel brexit.


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 17, 2019)

Monty Python was pretty good at portraying British political parties.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 17, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> no because some who voted to leave  have  lost trust in Politicians and the system, while  remainers  have a reason to vote because they have been given a second chance to vote for a party to cancel brexit.


Young people have the lowest voter turnout, young people are overwhelmingly remain

You do the math on which side isn't voting


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 17, 2019)

x65943 said:


> Young people have the lowest voter turnout, young people are overwhelmingly remain
> 
> You do the math on which side isn't voting



well I've seen a few teenagers on tv moaning they were too young to vote in the referendum but could now  vote in the election now but it looks like many couldn't be bothered 

I wonder how many of the 3 million Waspi women voted for Labour and how many voted Tory. 3 million could make a massive difference to an election.


----------



## FGFlann (Dec 18, 2019)

I don't believe it is fair to definitively categorize the voting base into percentages for leave and remain on the grounds of the election result. A lot of party based voting is inherently tribal and does not necessarily reflect one's opinions on a single issue. Though the conservative's gains in labour traditional areas are a good indicator of the popularity of leave, a lot of that tribal voting is still a very real factor, particularly in areas like South Wales where the cultural anti-tory sentiment is very strong.


----------



## Tarmfot (Dec 22, 2019)

matthi321 said:


> so when is he gonna delay brexit again?



Probably they will purposely do a bad brexit that will cause another election/referendum  where remainders win.
This implies no scottish referendum. The first was actually without warranties...


----------



## notimp (Dec 23, 2019)

After you have brexited you cant just vote yourself back in. You'd have to go through the entire admission process again, you will loose all special privileges the UK currently holds within the EU, so reentering wouldnt be the same, even in theory.

The idea that THEY would do a bad deal, so people would vote remain again is preposterous.

All deals they can do are bad compared to what you had. Thats the entire point. You voted leave, now you will suffer economically, so will the EU. But the UK initially will hurt more - because it depends more  on EU trade than the other way arrund. In the short term. Five years at least.

The only way around it would be to structure trade deals that would be 'like you were in the EU' but without being in the EU, which the EU cant grant you.

You have the designer of the brexit movement state on video, that he reckons, that after brexit - the EU will move, and structure you a cushy bilateral trade deal, as to not hurt itself as well in the process. That was his plan. Be it a flawed (but not entirely unlikely) one.

So who are you talking about.

They make me vote! (No one in power wanted brexit.) Then they make me vote opposite! (No its not your decision, its always theirs! Wait, who  are we talking about?).

You've got your right to remain isolationist and buy products from  the US back, dont worry. Your right to undercut EU standards when dealing with Malaysia. Your rights to produce shoes cheaper and with less labor cost than italy. Thats what you wanted.

The brexit chief strategist (Cummings) is on tape (video linked in here) saying, we were lucky, because we could count on the trifactor of 2008 in the minds of the public, the migration crises (now pretty much under wraps) in the EU, and them wanting a thing back that probably never existed - otherwise, the remainers position of 'there will be an economic fallout' would have  prevailed.

Who is they?

My side cant even be accused of producing what they said they would produce? Bad trade deal. And economic suffering? (Short term at least)?

Or do we have a huge misunderstanding about what a 'bad deal' consists of?

Because most of what Boris  is as far as we can tell was an internal party revolt to get the architects of the thing in power - so the EU still wont change your deal substantially. But now its not May in power anymore - horray. Deal so much better now.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> you will loose all special privileges the UK currently holds within the EU



what privileges, Thatchers rebate ?



notimp said:


> The idea that THEY would do a bad deal, so people would vote remain again is preposterous.



if you mean the Labour party by 'THEY' then what would be their deal ?. I doubt it would be much different from what we have now with the EU.



notimp said:


> But the UK initially will hurt more - because it depends more  on EU trade than the other way arrund. In the short term. Five years at least.





> In 2018, *UK* exports to the *EU* were £291 billion (45% of all *UK* exports). *UK* imports from the *EU* were £357 billion (53% of all *UK* imports). The share of *UK* exports accounted for by the *EU* has generally fallen over time from 55% in 2006 to 44% in 2016, though this increased slightly to 45% in 2018.



https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851



notimp said:


> The only way around it would be to structure trade deals that would be 'like you were in the EU' but without being in the EU, which the EU cant grant you.



It looks like Boris was thinking of a “super Canada-plus” trade deal with the EU

https://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/90320/what-is-a-canada-style-brexit


----------



## notimp (Dec 23, 2019)

Yes I meant the rebates. But not only those you gained at the time of thatcher, but also extended under Blair and Cameron f.e.

Britain always got special status within the EU, git concessions no one else got.

EU exit deal is basically fixed for maybe a year now. Labor, Torries, Brexit parties opinion don't mean a thing at this point.

(Labor would have - If you'd have decided to really undo the referendum.)

They matter for what comes in your country after. 'Get Brexit done.' was  a nice slogan, but it wasn't very 'true' to the point. (If you werent in fantasy land of: We can still undo it! Or in fear land, that this still could become true.)

So your entire last election, basically was about 'who' (and mostly what fraction - not what party) is in power (and how strong the opposition will be) during transition. But not because of 'EU deal' but because of what they can do after brexit.

Bojo will basically take the same deal as May - with some small concessions, that you won't remember in two years time.

(Talking hypotheticals with labor in power it may have been different, but even thats unlikely.)

So my point being - the person talking about 'THEY' (not mentioned who they were meaning) - might make a bad deal, so we vote 'get all into the EU again' is entirely delusional. The time for 'backsies' and 'british exceptionalism' (lets bend the rules again!) is over once and for all.

No - now is the time for everyone to suffer to think about what they have done. 

And suffering was - hat the Brexit party wanted for most of you short term. (Brighter future (growth), not specified when, remember?)

And what happens after that - is out of anyones hands. You cant very well plan those things - as you've all just impressively shown to the world.



> In 2018, *UK* exports to the *EU* were £291 billion (45% of all *UK* exports). *UK* imports from the *EU* were £357 billion (53% of all *UK* imports). The share of *UK* exports accounted for by the *EU* has generally fallen over time from 55% in 2006 to 44% in 2016, though this increased slightly to 45% in 2018.


Exactly. The UKs suffering will be larger, because they depend more on the EU as a market, than the EU does depend on them.
See: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02815 (Trade deficit is what you are looking for.)

Half of what you depend on in your country comes from the EU. Half of what you sell to anyone in the world, still goes to the EU.

For the EU the UK were basically the entryway for international investment, because UK had a history in liberal finance stewardship, and everyone there spoke english. Now this function has to be moved over to Frankfurt (different corperate culture) - the end. (It will hurt investment flows into the EU). We will also miss your consumers. Not as much as you will miss ours though.

Last part is - why we will still have free trade in some form.


----------



## notimp (Dec 23, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> It looks like Boris was thinking of a “super Canada-plus” trade deal with the EU


Hey mister we have to explain basics to you a year after all of this is over. What Boris was thinking of, doesnt matter sh*t.

EU has to balance giving the UK all benefits of being a member state of the EU with none of the cost payed - because if they start doing that it wil produce internal revolts of other member states wanting the same. So 'pick and choose' and more better than Canada super plus are all delusions.

You just made your country less important (smaller), by voting yourself out of one of the bigger fractions (EU), remember?

If you are stupid enough, that you could be made to vote in the last election based on thinking, that that was what you were voting for - congratulations, slap yourself in the face. Really- you don't get another three years for realizing what song is playing.
--

The actual argument of the brexiters sounds something like this.

We see all future growth markets (in services mostly) outside of the EU (because of demographics, and international power shifts (people in the EU getting old). Sadly, also mostly in second or third world economies. So we have to lower the frack out of our common (social and work) standards, to also be able to do deals over there.

So - lets get out of the EU to be able to do that.

Where will prosperity come from? If you get rid of high standards and make deals with thailand at a fraction of the cost you could have while still in the EU, companies that wouldnt have been viable in the past can grow. If something works as a trend and others try to replicate it - educated workers in that sector get paid more, because they cant be produced as fast as they are needed.

But for you to get to the point where you are economically competitive with Singapore - its now a few years of suffering ('degrowth') for you.

The end.

(One more explanation - a 'good deal with the EU' would mean, that you can adjust the speed of that process better. Basically. So that you don't have to do it next day. Thats all. (Because to export wares into the EU you still have to adhere to common market standards - so you cant undercut those, so there is not where you get your benefits - the opposite actually. Costs here will rise.) Thats all you ever wanted - really. That and not paying for EU projects.)


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Half of what you depend on in your country comes from the EU. Half of what you sell to anyone in the world, still goes to the EU.





> The share of *UK* exports accounted for by the *EU* has generally fallen over time from 55% in 2006 to 44% in 2016, though this increased slightly to 45% in 2018.



Exports from UK to EU has fallen by 10% over 12 years, so the UK now is exporting 10% more to countries outside the EU than it did 12 years ago, don't you think the UK can increase its exports to the USA ( i think our biggest export market outside the EU at 14%) , China and the rest of the world ?


----------



## notimp (Dec 23, 2019)

Yes, EU isnt a growth market for UK exports anymore. 44% is still a large number ("half").

What you'd actually look at is trade deficit. So how much more do you import than export? From a certain region. And then look at the same number on the EUs side (different countries). (Germnay afair will be hit most by Brexit on the EUs side btw)

Btw what innovations has the UK produced in the last 12 years? So thats the other side of the coin, if you have free trade - and you are not staying competitive, but are still a high wage economy - worth will leave your country.

Also - understand that everyone still wants a free market in some form (some sectors excluded maybe (protectionism)). So regardless of what that number is, you are not cutting ties there. You are not doing a hard brexit as far as I've come to understand.. 

Meaning the whole 'better deal' always actually was about 'getting sovereignty back' but thats solely to undercut your workers rights and regulations when dealing with poorer (but still likely to grow) countries. No one - and especially not the US want more regulation and workers rights than the EU essentially.

So its sovereignty over being able to turn down (reduce) rights and regulations when dealing with other countries (so to f.e. outcompete lets say italy in shoes - which is one of their main industries, which EU would have prevented), and at your own speed.

Thats the freedom you have gained. Look at small and medium enterprises in the labor sector. Their conditions should actually deteriorate, and not improve over the next few years. So whatever xenophobic motive ('more money for our people') people might have held there, they have voted against their interest actually.

And you made sure to vote in a very market liberal govenment on top of that, so yeah.. 

Good news is, that after the shock - you might grow your country 'better' to what it was where you left the EU (you exchanged better growth trends long term for worse economic conditions short term, and poorer working conditions). But predictions say thats starting maybe after five years - not short term.

And your national banks will pump in credit to lessen the short term impact (keep the pound strong), but you'll still feel it. (Recession, stagnation, ..)

Savings on EU projects is nothing compared to what has to be invested there. But that  goes on top of your state deficit, so thats your long, long credit line - so impact can be negotiated politically (when you do something about that). It never was about the money you payed for EU projects. Comparatively those are peanuts. You get one new hospital in Bojos home town, and thats it.  To better health care for the (not so affluent) elderly is not a priority in a recession.

edit: And you are out of 'further integration projects within the EU' common banking system, common army, exchange system on higher education (private (work visas) and public) ... But you'll, still retain 'partner status' on those at least. Probably. To at least have an inside view of whats going on.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

Analysis of what happened (2019 general elections in the UK) from the left is there.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 29, 2019)

well from this report it doesn't look good for the EU but good for the UK. 



> Only one EU country is predicted to improve its standing in the ranking of the world’s largest economies by the end of the century: Britain will go from the world’s seventh largest economy to its sixth largest.



https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-on-the-wane-global-economics-demographics-gdp/


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

Key word - end of century. (Better growth trends for the UK long term, hasher impact short term.)

(Also predictions, but yeah  )
-

But more than that, this is the problem with "camp" like thinking. Lets presume, those predictions are correct. What are the reasons for them?

If you end up at 'dwindling populations' and high economic status that is only surpassed by nations that are currently at a growth path out of second or third world status (except britan - in the theoretical argument) - here comes the kicker - will it get better if you leave the EU?

As a political argument to convince people to do anything this is about the worst possible argument you can make - but taken certain developments as a given...

UK held a special position in regards to that because of former industrial and financial networks, their "expertise" in sectors that can easily be scaled up regardless of regionality (think financial services) - and in the end, economic growth doesnt reflect income growth in recent years - because of automation as a factor... 

(So at this point, simply think - what if 'the hardships of brexit' can be used to further lower wages, while investing in automation, thus producing higher GDP growth that people will never see... Again - you voted more market liberal, right.  )
-

All that said - from a certain perspective, it made sense, that the UK left the EU at this point, took the economic hit, and got on a better growth curve long term.

Just the people voting for that did so because of lies, will on average not reap the benefits in their lifetimes - and its not sure if the economic paradigm can hold - past, well you decide, but everyone on the left is seemingly searching for something new.  (From a position of obscurity at this point.  )

Point being - the paths along which you'll grow are by first reducing quality of work, social security structures and income - while trying to get rid of structural dependance of imports. (Or not.  ) So thats not a fun time. 
-

In the end - those graphs basically show:

"What - we be able to have 'free trade' with the EU and a sector of 'lower wage' jobs to have 'free trade' with the south east - unrestricted and not having to account for what that means for italy, or spain, or..." Well yes - its a better growth potential - naturally. 

Again - this is not a hard brexit scenario - where you'd be first kicked back to the stone ages, ..  You simply gained the freedom to outcompete other EU states, 'gaining back control over the economy' without loosing the european free market, right?

(Then - longterm, europe will get less important, because of popultion trends alone.)

The thing is - with every other country in the world, especially the smaller ones, trade deals usually get 'dictated' by the bigger economy.

So - if your target markets to grow on are Malaysia and Singapore, your trade deals still may be favorable - if you are f.e. Poland, or Italy, and not the UK - they are not. Economically you were such a huge part of the EU, that no other countries can follow your example basically. (And you are an island.  (Meaning, what do you care, about people on the continent.))

Also - there is a difference between becoming the sixth largest economy (thats below India afair), and trying to compete with the US or China.  (There are limits..  )


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

Ah, found the point where your statistics 'lied'. 

UK, wont be 'growing' either.

So after a short period of declining faster than the EU, you will start to decline slower than germany.  On a GDP basis.

This be the glorious predicted future. 











So - part of the initial argument of staying in the EU was - that with a larger 'economic block' you could have stemmed the tied of 'loosing relative GDP' longer - thus, also resulting in more economic growth.

But you were used by the US as splitters.  So you could be 0.1 percent better (in relative terms) than Germany in 2100, but at the same time - loose half of your overall GDP - with the rest of europe (comparatively - to the rest of the worlds, at that point).

Great. 

Look, you are even 0.2 percent above Ethiopia.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

Because the initial graph ("Which position will we be at relatively to the world.") is quite useless - its a sports metaphor basically, because you cant buy yourself anything for being fifth, or sixth - but fun, I took a second look.

According to the graph UKs 'uptick' (getting one position better, while loosing almost half of your relative (in percentage points) GDP) will start in 2070. Yay! 

So lets say you are 20 years old as of now - you'll be 70, when you reep the economic benefits. 

That arent there, because actually you also are on steep decline.  

And all during that decline that doesnt show up in 'rank' - that still would have been less pronounced (only in the short term) if you've had stayed in the EU.

Only US is funnier.

So from 2020 to 2100 US will loose 50% of relative GDP, while increasing population by 30%. Thats... Sportive..  Never looked at that too closely before. So social friction will be through the roof at that point. If you don't counter with Propaganda. 

If you take France f.e. (as an impromptu average for EU countries (which it isnt, but lets  )) - it will lose 50% of their relative GPD, but at least also only gain 0.2% in population. 

So... I don't quite know how Politico comes up with their headlines, but.. 
All still referencing the prediction data from:
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-on-the-wane-global-economics-demographics-gdp/

edit:  Great graphs though, btw.  Thank you for linking.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 29, 2019)

I was hoping for a more in depth analysis than that video provided in the end but it did showcase an interesting approach, and provided something a bit more eloquent than the "what fucking production?" reply I can only give when some types prattle on about the means of it. The stuff about nonsense jobs also intrigued me, especially when looking at high tech sectors and how relatively few employees they have. I would also wonder if things could be spun up from the ground up to dodge the administrator inefficiency (as it stands we are already slowly reinventing the dual paths thing for engineering type roles where you can become manglement, or just become bloody good at what you do and paid accordingly).


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 29, 2019)

notimp said:


> Ah, found the point where your statistics 'lied'.
> 
> UK, wont be 'growing' either.
> 
> ...



you know the problem with statistics, if you put your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge, statistics say your doing ok 

I don't think all this takes account of the UK no longer being in the EU not that it would make much difference.

I don't know where this American company got their figures from, but The Philippines will be the 10th biggest economy by 2100 !


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2019)

Don't know - sources would be nice, but they only link one (?) UN level source as source for all their data? Visializations are nice though.

My best guess is, that it does include brexit trends, because the UK gets a relative uptick (compared to germany), which wouldnt be that distinct of a trend otherwise. I could be wrong though. Italy drops from 2.5% relative GDP to 0.8% in 2100 - so thats the 'trends' they are working with. If 'further unification of Europe' had taken place with UK cooperation, maybe that wouldn't show as harsh.

That was what you (UK citizens average  ) feared right - that you'd have to help Italy more..  That you shouldnt outcompete their manufacturing base, right. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> I was hoping for a more in depth analysis than that video provided in the end but it did showcase an interesting approach, and provided something a bit more eloquent than the "what fucking production?" reply I can only give when some types prattle on about the means of it. The stuff about nonsense jobs also intrigued me, especially when looking at high tech sectors and how relatively few employees they have. I would also wonder if things could be spun up from the ground up to dodge the administrator inefficiency (as it stands we are already slowly reinventing the dual paths thing for engineering type roles where you can become manglement, or just become bloody good at what you do and paid accordingly).


Yes only one guy with a prefixed notion.  But at least its something that could describe what the nationalistic right tapped into. More analyses welcome.

(Not the best video I've posted - I agree.  )


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2019)

Because I really liked those graphs, I extrapolated per million (population) relative GDP (in percentage points) now and in 2100 for five countries. 

Relative per million capita percentage points of world wide GDP

US today:
0.06
US 2100:
0.023

Germany today:
0.055
Germany 2100:
0.024

UK today:
0.049
UK 2100:
0.024

Ethiopia today:
0.0006
Ethiopia 2100:
0.0057
(Thats 10x wealth gain (as per percentage points of world GDP)  )

India today:
0.0027
India 2100:
0.0136
(Thats 5x wealth gain (as per percentage points of world GDP)  )

China today:
0.010
China 2100:
0.014
(Thats 1.4x wealth gain (as per percentage points of world GDP)  )

Thats globalization, my friends. 

Also - per capita average may very well be wrongly skewed, because it assumes, that wealth is equally distributed - which it wont be. 

In total numbers, of course, south east asia will wipe the floor with everyone else. 

Africa will become another Europe.

Iraq will be wealthy.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 9, 2020)

Seems I missed this thread but the results are very interesting. Just like Twitter it seems gbatemp is a left leaning echo chamber with no actual relevance to the real world. Seems gbatemp, much like Twitter, has lost another election.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Seems I missed this thread but the results are very interesting. Just like Twitter it seems gbatemp is a left leaning echo chamber with no actual relevance to the real world. Seems gbatemp, much like Twitter, has lost another election.


To be an echo chamber don't you have to allow no dissenting opinion or discussions? Plenty of people seem to be having discussions about any party, any which way as far as political thoughts, philosophies and actions and seems to have a bit of point-counterpoint too rather than shouting into the void.
I would be surprised if the site was not left leaning (younger people, like games, quite content to raise the finger to businesses) but maybe reserve the claims of echo chamber for when there is one, lest you be like the oxygen thieves crying fascist when there is not really any anywhere near any kind of power.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 9, 2020)

Other than me and maybe JoeBloggs its basically an echo chamber. You all spout the same trash and then wonder why the country didn't vote the way you'd like. It's *almost as if insulting people for 4 years and calling them racist sexist xenophobes (and yes, fascists as you so aptly point out) *_*doesn't get you votes. *_ If this site is filled mainly with younger people giving businesses the middle finger and expecting free stuff for life and their student debts cancelled, maybe one from this band of geniuses can explain why they never seem to be able to get in power. Why is Europe rejecting the left? Has anyone on the left on this site asked why you keep getting rejected and how to fix it or is it gonna be 4 more years of  _*(WE WANT A THIRD REFERENDUM, RUSSIAN BOTS, YOU CHEATED)*_ 

Personally I hope it carries on, I love nothing more than watching the left implode on it's own bs political ideologies.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 9, 2020)

I resent being lumped in with the left you seem to so fear -- I would say I have more embraced nihilism than anything I saw in the labour/snp/lib dem manifesto, or at best all (right wing included) have massive flaws with regards to their embrace of science, ideas on free speech (all these recent prosecutions for gross offence were allowed to continue despite the right being in a prime position to reign in the CPS or quash things), approaches to justice/criminal reform, IP law (I am quite dreading what we might see with the upcoming American negotiations here -- their term lengths, software patents and medical/DNA patents tend to be a fairly key export and I don't know that enough people will care to resist those), international relations, healthcare and probably economics as well. I would also say I am quite amused at the slow implosion of labour, and indeed hope it speeds up and we get a nice reformation into a coherent opposition by losing the baggage they seem to have acquired (or give some measure of free reign) in recent times.

I would also say again that to be an echo chamber you really want active suppression or maybe a seriously heavy social stigma against the dissenting views for your particular flavour. You may find yourself in the political equivalent of a sausage fest or clam bake as the case may be but that does not inherently an echo chamber make.

Bill Bailey once had a sketch along the lines of "I have been a lifelong supporter of the labour party, however right now it is like being a fan of a band when they have just released a weird concept album (though that was during the initial ousting, right now we are probably way past that)" and you may find that quite reflects the opinions of many here (looking at speeches and actions thus far even one Mr Johnson seems to recognise that much support given him is rather tenuous and possibly based on Labour becoming a bunch of fucknuts the last cycle or two, personally I would say longer still as I am also not a fan of Blair but he at least could command something). I would also say that most around here are not doing the headless chicken thing you do encounter in a few places and are quite prepared to analyse stats (scroll up if you want), campaign promises, methods and more besides.
You might do better then to meet someone along lines of common ground. Or if you prefer I was leading more towards maybe embrace the 90s hacker ideals that you might well share with those you otherwise seek to laugh out. The businesses thing is usually more when they stomp on in, try to take things we have had for years otherwise, try to prevent people from doing their own thing with their own thing that the company made, and otherwise do the whole maximum profits at the cost of long term viability, stability and fun. Free stuff is nice but just as many would happily acknowledge that funding has to come from somewhere.

Similarly is Europe rejecting the left? While there have certainly been some interesting elections in a few places what are the resulting policies and courses of action in most places? Indeed, assuming the simple left-right divide is a useful concept*, what do we call the left? The right in Europe would not make its way in the right wing of the 70s (and definitely not the 20s, 40s, 50s or prior) or probably America right now -- how much of the European right (or politics in general) really gives a flying fuck about abortion, gun control, religious principles (give or take Poland and Ireland but even then the trajectory seems to be one way for those places), is gung ho for military spending, is not for healthcare, is opposed to putting a collar on business (the economic free zones thing Mr Johnson seems to be banking on still represent quite considerable tariffs and restrictions, just a different take on the matter, and one that is already done all over Europe)... all bread and butter of the US right there.


*the endless axes (do we have the socially blah but economically other, or authoritarian vs libertarian) and compass tests are amusing to design and contemplate but still struggle to represent more complicated positions.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 24, 2020)

At this point I'm just hoping they leave the EU, but I don't trust any of the politicians or the parties. Just get it done one way or another.



notimp said:


> Key word - end of century. (Better growth trends for the UK long term, hasher impact short term.)
> 
> (Also predictions, but yeah  )
> -
> ...


Dude, your comment does not have enough emojis. You gotta insert more.


----------

