The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

They're all at it. Difference is it doesn't really matter very much if Miliband starts playing party politics.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

They're all at it. Difference is it doesn't really matter very much if Miliband starts playing party politics.

No, but it does make him hypocritical saying it.

[Little Green Man]

Yeah, it's been trailed for a long time, but it's still a big moment to hear a UK Prime Minister speak in those terms.

You and bish both used the word 'trailed' and I don't really understand what it means. I would understand 'trialed' better in the sense of floated as a trial balloon. Does it mean that the idea has been mooted for some time to get a general reaction before the PM actually says anything?

9. (Communication Arts / Broadcasting) (tr) (on television or radio) to advertise (a future programme) with short extracts

As you'd expect, UK politicians, as 'masters' of the communication arts, are adept at trailing their policies these days too.

I suspect the term comes from the idea of cutting a trail - such that we can all get more easily to the guff they're peddling.

[mrkint]

I'm just puzzled as to why say this now, when we have the negotiations coming up. By all means declare intentions for a referendum after the negotiation, but doing it before? It's bloody stupid.

To strengthen our hand by suggesting that we really might leave if we don't get what we want?

It just seems so very clumsy, though. Why not do it at the negotiating table instead? I just feel that politically it's put the PM in a difficult position and made a mountain out of a molehill, so to speak.

To misquote Alan Partridge, it could be in a year or so's time that David Cameron has EU pie all over his shirt.

[Prufrock]

They're all at it. Difference is it doesn't really matter very much if Miliband starts playing party politics.

No, but it does make him hypocritical saying it.

True, but he'd hardly be alone. They are all always accusing each other of playing party politics whilst in turn each plays party politics himself.

[Prufrock]

I'm just puzzled as to why say this now, when we have the negotiations coming up. By all means declare intentions for a referendum after the negotiation, but doing it before? It's bloody stupid.

To strengthen our hand by suggesting that we really might leave if we don't get what we want?

It just seems so very clumsy, though. Why not do it at the negotiating table instead? I just feel that politically it's put the PM in a difficult position and made a mountain out of a molehill, so to speak.

To misquote Alan Partridge, it could be in a year or so's time that David Cameron has EU pie all over his shirt.

I imagine the plan is: firstly talk in assertive terms about Europe and getting what we want. This appeases the back-benchers and takes the wind out of UKIP's sails whilst also allowing the Tories to emphasise their position as the major party closest to the hearts of the Daily Mail UKIP lot. It's also a good way for both the Tories and the Lib Dems to do their occasional distancing act to remind their grass-roots that they are still distinct parties. What Cameron is proposing isn't actually the in-out referendum folk were talking about a few weeks ago, but the middle-ground-or-out question framed as an in-out question. Allows the Tories to portray themselves as the party who let the people decide whilst having the added bonus of putting Labour in a difficult position as they dance around the question of the 'in-out' referendum.

Furthermore, it allows the Tories to look as if they mean business in Europe, and are serious about considering quitting, hopefully strengthening our hand for these negotiations. That said, Cameron threw in a lot of stuff to show we don't want to leave, and wont, just as long as we can have some stuff off them.

Fingers crossed, we get some concessions that the Tories can wave about whilst backing the new stay in option, forcing Labour and the Lib Dems to tag along whilst the Tories get to claim the credit for sticking one to Europe, whilst keeping us in Europe.

Or something.

Thing is the only way I could see the result being an 'out' vote of any referendum is if the Tories backed it, as the Lib Dems and Labour wont. I can't see a campaign backed by all three major parties losing. There aren't that many Hobohs out there. It would then leave the Tories in a difficult spot if Europe say 'non', as they don't want to leave, but would lose massive face if they went to the public saying, 'you know how we said the current deal is shit, well, let's stick with it!'.

[Harry Genshaw]

I think Prufrocks pretty much nailed it there. Much as I dislike the fella, I can't help thinking Cameron (& the way this has been stage managed) has been pretty clever.

Euro sceptics, euro philes and Tories in key marginals could all have reason to be pleased with the announcement. An announcement that sounds bold but doesn't actually promise or commit to anything. It also makes him look decisive, particularly when compared to Labours confused response.

[William the White]

I think Prufrocks pretty much nailed it there. Much as I dislike the fella, I can't help thinking Cameron (& the way this has been stage managed) has been pretty clever.

Euro sceptics, euro philes and Tories in key marginals could all have reason to be pleased with the announcement. An announcement that sounds bold but doesn't actually promise or commit to anything. It also makes him look decisive, particularly when compared to Labours confused response.

It will unravel over the next few months as he's required to show his 'demands' or be accused of avoiding the issues... And the debate will start... and he'll want to be evasive but won't get away with it... And the Tories will have industrialists and commercial interests writing letters to The Times (again) - some saying out, some in...

And, with luck, they'll feck themselves once more as they indulge their Europe obsession rather than the economy and things people actually seriously care about...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Yeah, it's been trailed for a long time, but it's still a big moment to hear a UK Prime Minister speak in those terms.

You and bish both used the word 'trailed' and I don't really understand what it means. I would understand 'trialed' better in the sense of floated as a trial balloon. Does it mean that the idea has been mooted for some time to get a general reaction before the PM actually says anything?

Yes. Perhaps it's a British idiom.

Thanks. I think it must be. I finally found it in the OED (although it seemed to refer exclusively to radio and television broadcasts and presumably where we get the word trailer from). All the examples are indeed British. It may have a more generalized sense by now.

4. To give advance notice of (a radio or television programme). Also transf. Cf. trail n.1 11, trailer n. 4b.
1941 B.B.C. Gloss. Broadcasting Terms 33 Trail (v. trans.), to draw the attention of listeners to a forthcoming programme or other event of broadcasting importance by means of announcements, recorded excerpts, or other methods calculated to make it widely known.
1942 ‘G. Orwell’ Diary 14 Aug. in Coll. Ess. (1968) II. 443 Horrabin was broadcasting today... This had been extensively trailed and advertised beforehand.
1960 Guardian 8 Nov. 7/2 It remains to me an object of mystery..why the BBC trailed this programme..as unsuitable for young people.
1976 Daily Tel. 20 Dec. 8 Powell blamed newspapers for having ignored his embargo—journalists usually receive copies of his speeches a day or two beforehand—but for years his speeches have been ‘trailed’ without complaint.
1978 Times 7 Aug. 12/5 At least by trailing their message on the envelope the senders have..reduced wear on my paper knife.
1980 Musicians Only 26 Apr. 11/5 Released to trail a three album blockbuster.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm just puzzled as to why say this now, when we have the negotiations coming up. By all means declare intentions for a referendum after the negotiation, but doing it before? It's bloody stupid.

To strengthen our hand by suggesting that we really might leave if we don't get what we want?

It just seems so very clumsy, though. Why not do it at the negotiating table instead?

The European political elite, understandably, does not like democratic votes on the subject of the EU and might go to some lengths to avoid them.

Partly because it is always an embarrassing fact that most countries' populations are still pretty nationalistic on outlook and the idea of a politically integrated Europe is not terribly popular.

And I have always thought that the EU is at most risk from dissatisfaction contagion when it is a popular vote making the point. When one country's population gives the machine a bloody nose, it emboldens EU-sceptics in other countries more than mere governmental action does. There was some of this at play when the French 'no' vote in 2005 was swiftly followed by a Dutch 'no'. It's interesting to remember that only Spain was the significant 'yes' in that round of voting, with all the others bar Luxembourg cancelled - how would the Spanish vote on a smilar question now, I wonder?

[thebish]

Thing is the only way I could see the result being an 'out' vote of any referendum is if the Tories backed it, as the Lib Dems and Labour wont. I can't see a campaign backed by all three major parties losing. There aren't that many Hobohs out there.

don't you believe it!!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't want us to leave the EU, but surely the debate has to be had and won for this generation?

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't want us to leave the EU, but surely the debate has to be had and won for this generation?

Serious question though. Do we need a referendum? Are the general public suitable to make such a big and ultimately complex decision?

And IF they are why don't we have a referendum on every major policy issue?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't want us to leave the EU, but surely the debate has to be had and won for this generation?

Serious question though. Do we need a referendum? Are the general public suitable to make such a big and ultimately complex decision?

And IF they are why don't we have a referendum on every major policy issue?

You're basically asking "is democracy a good idea?". A big question.

My personal feeling is that it is appropriate to have referenda on issues that are genuinely 'constitutional' in nature, and that for those constitutional issues that involve some kind of limiting of the sovereignty of our nation state, fresh consent should be sought every generation.

[mrkint]

Democracy is a terrible idea but best of a bad bunch innit. Then again I guess it depends on how widely or narrowly you define 'democracy'.

Have any of you read An Economic Theory of Democracy by Anthony Downs? Interesting book.

But then again, I digress.

I've really become a miserable bastard since university.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Have any of you read An Economic Theory of Democracy by Anthony Downs? Interesting book.

No.

Recommended?

[thebish]

I don't know what he's banking on, but the 'promise' was contingent on a Conservative majority.

If he gets a majority, I don't see how he has any choice but to follow through with it now.

I think you are seriously misunderestimating the scurrilicity that elected politicians are capable of!

he could very easily announce that the talks had failed and that he had offered an in/out referendum based on the newly negotiated europe. if there is no newly negotiated europe - then no need for an in/out referendum based on that new deal. it might be a bit rocky for him - but if he is newly elected with a tory majority - he can live with that.

it's not really much different to the current consensus between the party that any major changes in europe are now locked to a referendum - it just SOUNDS different.. plus - it is a loooong time away - at least in the minds of most voters.

I think cameron has made the calculation (maybe rather cleverly) that it is in his interests to buy off the UKIP votes now and win an outright majority - and pay the cost later on if/when he has to back off his promise. after all - in 4 or 5 years time he is more than capable of saying "we are living in a very different world now" etc...

[mrkint]

MWCIEC - Yeah. It's from the 50s so might be a bit outdated, and a lot of the ideas seem very 'out there' but it is a very interesting take, putting economical models and applying them to political decision making. It might not be everyone's cup of tea in terms of its method but either way it's an interesting read. It's not too graph/formulae-heavy either, IIRC.

In fact, that's reminded me: i'm gonna get a copy and re-read it. Not done so for about five years.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

scurrilicity ...

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't want us to leave the EU, but surely the debate has to be had and won for this generation?

Serious question though. Do we need a referendum? Are the general public suitable to make such a big and ultimately complex decision?

And IF they are why don't we have a referendum on every major policy issue?

You're basically asking "is democracy a good idea?". A big question.

My personal feeling is that it is appropriate to have referenda on issues that are genuinely 'constitutional' in nature, and that for those constitutional issues that involve some kind of limiting of the sovereignty of our nation state, fresh consent should be sought every generation.

It's an interesting thing to think about though. Although we have a democratic system, that doesn't extend to (and this is topical) the public being able to cherry pick a parties policies, plans or law changes.

It means they elect the party and pretty much have to suck up what they do until the next time. And often what they elect on is different to what actually happens.

I suspect that your line in the sand will be tough as the argument will always be "what merits something being constitutional in nature".

Are the British public on the whole, really well informed enough to make a proper decision on Europe? I can think of things to have referendums on that the opinion of the public would be more relevant on and probably more telling.