miss_s_b: (Mood: Facepalm)
[personal profile] miss_s_b
Having blogged recently about how nice it's been the last couple of years not having to post about the stupid decisions Our Glorious Leader has taken twice a week, every week, I had this drawn to my attention this morning.

I'm sorry, Tim, but what are you DOING? The absolute worst possible thing you can do right now is water down our position on brexit. It's a colossal national act of self harm, in ten years' time you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to having supported it, our membership and voters are massively against it, and you want to tie us to it? Have you gone COMPLETELY Tonto? Why are you spouting the brexiteers ridiculous "will of the people" line? It doesn't make you look grown up, it makes you look weak and stupid.

Our USP at the moment, the one thing we have going for us, is that we are solidly anti-brexit. We already watered it down far too much in the manifesto. And you're throwing even that away? For what? We're not going to get any positive press for it, the press are uniformly hostile whatever we do. The only press we will get out of this is "See? Brexit is inevitable! Even the Lib Dems support it now!" That's not going to attract new members and supporters, in fact it will drive away lots of the existing ones.

And worst of all, it proves all our critics right: we look like weak, unprincipled fence-sitters.

Honestly, what is it with the lib dem instinct to, every time we manage to get a USP, throw it away? I'll never bloody understand it.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 11:33 am (UTC)
ggreig: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ggreig
He could have done a much better job of making your opposition to Brexit clear and mentioning the 2nd referendum (at all), but the idea of a cross-party approach to negotiating Brexit is not incompatible with opposition to the whole thing. The SNP have to do this quite a lot - "we oppose this stupidity and want out altogether, but if it is happening we also want a say". It can be a difficult sell to some voters, but if you want the best possible outcome however things turn out, it's worth doing.

Sorry to disagree when it's not my party, but I thought it was worth mentioning as it's one of the things I admire most about the way the SNP leadership handle things - the ground is being laid for multiple scenarios.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 11:38 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] theandrewhickey
That's what we did during coalition. The result was a loss of 54 seats and 2/3 of our vote share. The Parliamentary Party may be like Charlie Brown, certain Lucy won't move the football *this* time, but I learn that kind of lesson even if they don't.
We live in a system that punishes co-operative, consensus, politics. Attempting it only means that those who oppose the consensus get no voice whatsoever.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 12:01 pm (UTC)
ggreig: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ggreig
I think one big mistake of the coalition years was not saying "We oppose this but..." enough. I understand the reasons for that, but it looked like you just agreed.

I'm not suggesting seeking consensus without making your actual preferred position clear up front and repeatedly, throughout. That would be a disaster, right enough. It was.

I'd go a bit further. I think the Lib Dems need to try to show how consensus politics can work if we ever want a more proportional voting system which will need that consensus approach to emerge more often. I get that that's hard for you now, but I think as a party you need to get back on the horse.

Again, sorry for disagreeing when it's not my party - it's just my opinion and highly ignorable! :-) I'll butt out now.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 12:12 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] theandrewhickey
A consensus approach requires two parties, at a minimum, to try to find consensus. When one won't budge and the other will, all that happens is the immovable party wins. We've *ALREADY* compromised our position far more than I'm comfortable with in the name of "meeting them half-way". Now they're planning to do it again, with no sign of even the slightest compromise from the other side. It's death by a thousand cuts.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 12:30 pm (UTC)
ggreig: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ggreig
If they don't budge, you don't budge; but if you've visibly tried to reach a compromise then it becomes their failure to be constructive.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] theandrewhickey
No, it becomes "they sit on the fence and change their mind to whatever they think will be good for them".

Our position is *ALREADY* a compromise one. It's ALREADY a compromise much further than I think we should have gone. And yet that has merely emboldened the anti-civilisation side to go further in their own demands.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 01:00 pm (UTC)
sir_guinglain: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sir_guinglain
You're right. A harder opposition to Brexit is the best line which can be taken at present, especially as there is still a possibility the UK's departure will be impossible (said to be the reason Brexit minister Lord Bridges resigned yesterday).

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] theandrewhickey
I've been thinking of this since Tim's interview. I can't imagine why...

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 06:09 pm (UTC)
purplecthulhu: (Default)
From: [personal profile] purplecthulhu
And now he's resigned. I wonder if this issue was part of that decision for him...

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 07:06 pm (UTC)
daweaver:   (redlightdoor)
From: [personal profile] daweaver

For some things, compromise is possible. For other matters, it is a binary decision. Someone needs to get loud, and tread on a few toes.

The approximate speech I'd like to hear from Tim whoever follows:

"We, the people, spoke in 2016. We gave our government permission to investigate leaving the European Union.

The government went far beyond its mandate. We, the people, said investigate and report back, them in government chose to leave.

Then the government said they want a bigger mandate. And we the people said no.

We, the people, said no.

No to this plan, sketched out on the back of an envelope.

No to this policy.

We, the people, want to think again.

Did them in government listen? Did they heck!

We, the people, say this to Mrs. May:

You asked us for a mandate. We said no.

No means no.

Withdraw your "article fifty" letter and think again.

You do not negotiate on our behalf.

You do not speak for us.

There will be no exit. Not on my watch.

Date: Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 07:52 pm (UTC)
ms_katonic: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ms_katonic
And now he's resigned, so at least you won't have to put up with any more from him. I don't know if that's a comfort or not...

Date: Sunday, June 18th, 2017 07:18 pm (UTC)
hilarita: trefoil carving (Default)
From: [personal profile] hilarita
But Lib Dems should never *sell* things - only bicker about them in committee... hence a USP fundamentally contradicts what the LDs are all about ;)

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags