When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[yorksrob]

Johnson isn't going to lead anybody to anything. He doesn't have a political philosophy other than the aggrandisement of himself. He has good political antennae for short term "getting one over" the opposition (whether that's Labour or the Tory grandees), but that's it. Everything else is driven by the need to grab a good headline and shoot a good photo op.

I suppose that's preferable to a market ideologue.

 

[DerekC]

While this is true, Johnson possesses a reality distortion field which shields the wider public from all this. That ability to continue climbing political ladders in spite of being a short-sighted, selfish chump should not be underestimated.

The problem is that he has reached the top of the political ladder and now he has to perform in order to stay there for his planned one full term then resign to reap the benefits. Will the RDF (I do like that) hold up until he can call an election somewhere about 2023 with a good chance of winning? It rather depends how deep the Brexit hole turns out to be and whether he can bullsh*t his way through.

I suppose that's preferable to a market ideologue.

Isn't that how we got into the Brexit hole? Johnson wobbled along being propelled and guided by the ideologues because he sniffed glory. Now can he get us out again, or at least cover up the consequences and/or blame them all on ... oh, anyone else!!

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that he has reached the top of the political ladder and now he has to perform in order to stay there for his planned one full term then resign to reap the benefits. Will the RDF (I do like that) hold up until he can call an election somewhere about 2023 with a good chance of winning? It rather depends how deep the Brexit hole turns out to be and whether he can bullsh*t his way through.

Isn't that how we got into the Brexit hole? Johnson wobbled along being propelled and guided by the ideologues because he sniffed glory. Now can he get us out again, or at least cover up the consequences and/or blame them all on ... oh, anyone else!

I would argue that it was the free market idealogues that turned the EU from the rather sedate EEC into the single market, which arguably fuelled dissatisfaction with the institution in the first place.

But that all predates Johnsons time by a long way.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Johnson isn't going to lead anybody to anything. He doesn't have a political philosophy other than the aggrandisement of himself. He has good political antennae for short term "getting one over" the opposition (whether that's Labour or the Tory grandees), but that's it. Everything else is driven by the need to grab a good headline and shoot a good photo op.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I agree to the extent that Boris does seem to be motivated a lot by personal ambition and has well documented character flaws. But at the same time, he is very clearly leading the Tory party in a definite direction, a direction in which other senior Tories wouldn't have taken the party. He obviously believes in infrastructure investment and in capitalism being combined with some degree of one-nation-style social support. He's also evidently strongly committed in principle to the 'Unionist' part of Tory tradition (although it's equally obvious that the Tory party doesn't really know how to connect with Scotland and Wales in a way to increase support for the union), and also has libertarian instincts - which were very evident in his initial reluctance to use lockdowns in response to Covid. There is a definite underlying philosophy in his direction, even if it's sometimes hidden by his opportunism.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2021 ==

I suppose that's preferable to a market ideologue.

There's nothing wrong with support for free markets. Free market theory is broadly correct and well established as the most effective way to create wealth - it just needs to be combined with some compassion and human awareness - which often seemed to be lacking in the Thatcher approach. I fear people too often forget how bad a state the UK was in economically before Mrs. Thatcher and her free market 'ideology' came along.

 

[ainsworth74]

There's nothing wrong with support for free markets. Free market theory is broadly correct and well established as the most effective way to create wealth - it just needs to be combined with some compassion and human awareness - which often seemed to be lacking in the Thatcher approach. I fear people too often forget how bad a state the UK was in economically before Mrs. Thatcher and her free market 'ideology' came along.

Well it's the old "everything in moderation" issue isn't it? We don't want to be going down a Soviet Union style 5-year economic plans set by some sort of UK version of Gosplan. That, quite obviously, doesn't really work all that well as an engine of wealth creation or even just general prosperity and wellbeing. But equally you don't want to go to far in the other direction and just have totally unrestrained markets and capitalism as that might make a lot of wealth but it tends to do so for only a handful of individuals and the costs to society are also very high.

Now, personally, I do think the needle has started to swing to far towards the free markets and we would benefit from some slightly more stringent regulation and possibly even a bit of monopoly busting. Is it really healthy that Facebook owns WhatsApp and Instagram as well as itself? That Amazon dominates home deliveries of consumer goods, has a massive presence in webhosting, logistics, is moving into groceries, streaming, etc? That in international container shipping three firms hold 70% of the market? Other examples can be found I'm sure which I think should raise eyebrows.

It doesn't scream healthy economy to me when you start to see things like that...

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I agree to the extent that Boris does seem to be motivated a lot by personal ambition and has well documented character flaws. But at the same time, he is very clearly leading the Tory party in a definite direction, a direction in which other senior Tories wouldn't have taken the party. He obviously believes in infrastructure investment and in capitalism being combined with some degree of one-nation-style social support. He's also evidently strongly committed in principle to the 'Unionist' part of Tory tradition (although it's equally obvious that the Tory party doesn't really know how to connect with Scotland and Wales in a way to increase support for the union), and also has libertarian instincts - which were very evident in his initial reluctance to use lockdowns in response to Covid. There is a definite underlying philosophy in his direction, even if it's sometimes hidden by his opportunism.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2021 ==



There's nothing wrong with support for free markets. Free market theory is broadly correct and well established as the most effective way to create wealth - it just needs to be combined with some compassion and human awareness - which often seemed to be lacking in the Thatcher approach. I fear people too often forget how bad a state the UK was in economically before Mrs. Thatcher and her free market 'ideology' came along.

Not just compassion and human awareness, but also some element of democratic control over how economies operate.

The idea that you can somehow have a democracy where the public can choose what day the bins are taken out, but all the important economic matters are tied up in international treaties, has always seemed fanciful to me. This is the fundamental problem for Western societies.

 

[DarloRich]

Well the Tories seem to have lost my Mum's vote, she was a life-long Tory but "never again".

Though as she lives in a rock solid safe Labour seat it doesn't really make any difference...

Conversely, my Mum (83) has voted Lib Dem for decades but her views are becoming more and more Conservative.

Again, it won't make any difference as she's in a rock-solid Tory constituency!

The Johnson government is not Conservative. It is a right wing populist/vote leave/English Narional group crawled into a Tory skin suit.

Generally as people get older and more experienced they are more likely to vote Conservative.

They are more likely to have children and grandchildren and therefore to care about the consequences of their decisions. Their age means they can therefore see through the woke lefty ideology that their younger selves may have fallen for.

Riiiiiggghttt. Use of the phrase "wokey lefty ideology" rings alarm bells.

 

[Dai Corner]

The Johnson government is not Conservative. It is a right wing populist/vote leave/English Narional group crawled into a Tory skin suit.

I'd beg to differ, certainly on the English Nationalist point.

They're the only major Party here in Wales (and I think in Scotland) which unambiguously supports the Union.

 

[ainsworth74]

They're the only major Party here in Wales (and I think in Scotland) which unambiguously supports the Union.

They've got a really funny way of showing it...

 

[yorksrob]

I certainly think that a more Gaullist approach would serve them in better stead for supporting the Union.

 

[edwin_m]

I certainly think that a more Gaullist approach would serve them in better stead for supporting the Union.

I think that's what they used to call "one nation conservatism". Johnson might have been a possible figurehead for that in his days as London Mayor. But the way he's treated the nearly 50% (over 50% according to most polls) that opposed Brexit probably means he'll always be a divisive figure and incapable of achieving national unity.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that's what they used to call "one nation conservatism". Johnson might have been a possible figurehead for that in his days as London Mayor. But the way he's treated the nearly 50% (over 50% according to most polls) that opposed Brexit probably means he'll always be a divisive figure and incapable of achieving national unity.

This is probably true.

I use the term "Gaullist", because the French centre right has traditionally taken a more interventionist approach to preserving the French way of life than I believe even the one nation conservatives used to for here. I believe that this is very much the approach needed in the face of global capitalism, now more than ever.

 

[Dai Corner]

They've got a really funny way of showing it...

Have they?

 

[ainsworth74]

Have they?

The Tory Party have enacted an incredibly hard Brexit (far harder than anything that was on the table in 2016) despite two key countries within the Union having majorities in favour of remain. Perhaps even more damningly they've effectively put Northern Ireland outside of the UKs own internal market and are currently desperately trying to paper over the cracks to make it look like that's not what's happened. At the point at which a constituent part of your Union is no longer fully integrated with that Union due to your own political decisions I find it hard to believe claims that "we're the party which unambiguously supports the Union"....

 

[Dai Corner]

The Tory Party have enacted an incredibly hard Brexit (far harder than anything that was on the table in 2016) despite two key countries within the Union having majorities in favour of remain. Perhaps even more damningly they've effectively put Northern Ireland outside of the UKs own internal market and are currently desperately trying to paper over the cracks to make it look like that's not what's happened. At the point at which a constituent part of your Union is no longer fully integrated with that Union due to your own political decisions I find it hard to believe claims that "we're the party which unambiguously supports the Union"....

Wales voted to Leave and the Tories delivered that. They've just had their best ever results in a Welsh Parliament election.

I didn't mention Northern Ireland, and in any case politics is rather different there.

Who should Scots who wish the UK to remain intact vote for?

 

[ainsworth74]

Wales voted to Leave and the Tories delivered that. They've just had their best ever results in a Welsh Parliament election.

Good for the Welsh. And indeed the English who also voted to Leave and also rewarded the Tories handsomely. Less good for the other two nations of the United Kingdom though who have had their views on the matter basically totally ignored. Can you claim to "unambiguously support the Union" when you basically ignore half of it's constituent nations views to the point that one of them has now elected a Government with a mandate to hold a referendum on their continued participation in that Union?

I didn't mention Northern Ireland, and in any case politics is rather different there.

No but they are still a constituent part of the United Kingdom which as far as I can tell has been roundly sold down the river by the Tory government in Westminster to deliver Brexit. Again how is this the action of a party which "unambiguously supports the Union"?

Who should Scots who wish the UK to remain intact vote for?

Anyone other than the SNP or Greens I'd suggest seeing as the other parties appear to in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom.

 

[Dai Corner]

Good for the Welsh. And indeed the English who also voted to Leave and also rewarded the Tories handsomely. Less good for the other two nations of the United Kingdom though who have had their views on the matter basically totally ignored. Can you claim to "unambiguously support the Union" when you basically ignore half of it's constituent nations views to the point that one of them has now elected a Government with a mandate to hold a referendum on their continued participation in that Union?

Well, the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru are firmly against the Union continuing to exist and I'm not sure whether Labour are even considered a major Party in Scotland any more?

Let's not have the Brexit referendum debate all over again in this thread. We voted on a whole-uk basis, one person one vote and not a national, regional, constituency or any other basis. It's happened now and any campaign should be whether to (try to) rejoin.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru are firmly against the Union continuing to exist and I'm not sure whether Labour are even considered a major Party in Scotland any more?

Let's not have the Brexit referendum debate all over again in this thread. We voted on a whole-uk basis, one person one vote and not a national, regional, constituency or any other basis. It's happened now and any campaign should be whether to (try to) rejoin.

I'm not particularly trying to rehash the referendum it is, as you say, done. We are now living with those consequences for better or worse as Brexit has been delivered. The argument was that the Tories are the only party which "unambiguously" supports the United Kingdom. My view is that by looking at their actions recently in the way that they have delivered on that mandate is that that is a very questionable statement. A party which was concerned with the health the United Kingdom would probably have not taken steps to leave one of it's constituent nations on the other side of a trade barrier from the rest of the UK. It probably wouldn't have implemented a very hard Brexit deal over the objections of another constituent nation which had a majority in favour but was, perfectly fairly in the terms of the referendum, overruled by the UK wide majority in favour of leaving. The Tory party talks about being the "Conservative and Unionist Party" but their actions, to me, do not scream of an organisation which is actually concerned about that Union one bit.

I haven't at any stage suggested that Brexit should have been cancelled or should now be unilaterally reversed. I simply stated that as I see the way that that decision has been implemented has been done in a very damaging way for the health of the United Kingdom. I fully believe that by 2030 it is most likely that Scotland will be independent and it is most likely that Northern Ireland will probably be on the verge of reunifying with Ireland. I hope I'm wrong. But right now I find it laughable to suggest that it is the Tory party "unambiguously" support the Union when it seems like their political decisions over the past few years have done the most damage to it in living memory.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I haven't at any stage suggested that Brexit should have been cancelled or should now be unilaterally reversed. I simply stated that as I see the way that that decision has been implemented has been done in a very damaging way for the health of the United Kingdom. I fully believe that by 2030 it is most likely that Scotland will be independent and it is most likely that Northern Ireland will probably be on the verge of reunifying with Ireland. I hope I'm wrong. But right now I find it laughable to suggest that it is the Tory party "unambiguously" support the Union when it seems like their political decisions over the past few years have done the most damage to it in living memory.

To be fair, in the case of Northern Ireland, I don't think the Tories had any real choice: The Good Friday agreement as it stands basically forces Northern Ireland to be on the Irish/EU side of any trade barrier.

I think you are correct to the extent that the Tories' actions have done a lot to undermine support for the Union in Scotland, but I'm pretty sure that most senior Tories would see that as an unintended and very unfortunate consequence of other actions that they needed to take. I don't think it changes that, in principle, almost all Tory politicians very much want the UK to remain one country.

 

[bb21]

To be fair, in the case of Northern Ireland, I don't think the Tories had any real choice: The Good Friday agreement as it stands basically forces Northern Ireland to be on the Irish/EU side of any trade barrier.

True, however the Tory party were fully aware of these implications yet still decided to implement Brexit in such a way that antagonised (or worse, ignored the demands of) the unionists in Northern Ireland. I shudder to think how DUP politicians now must feel about supporting the Tories back in 2017 in forming an effective majority.

I think you are correct to the extent that the Tories' actions have done a lot to undermine support for the Union in Scotland, but I'm pretty sure that most senior Tories would see that as an unintended and very unfortunate consequence of other actions that they needed to take. I don't think it changes that, in principle, almost all Tory politicians very much want the UK to remain one country.

That is what I am rather confused by. Are you saying they took a calculated risk in their actions knowing the damage it would do to sentiments amongst Scottish people towards the union but betting that it would not be sufficient to overthrow the union in the long run, or that they were willing to sacrifice the union (and hence their principles) in pursuit of their own political ends? When you say "very unfortunate consequence of other actions that they needed to take", what are the actions they needed (as opposed to wanted) to take?

 

[edwin_m]

To be fair, in the case of Northern Ireland, I don't think the Tories had any real choice: The Good Friday agreement as it stands basically forces Northern Ireland to be on the Irish/EU side of any trade barrier.

I think you are correct to the extent that the Tories' actions have done a lot to undermine support for the Union in Scotland, but I'm pretty sure that most senior Tories would see that as an unintended and very unfortunate consequence of other actions that they needed to take. I don't think it changes that, in principle, almost all Tory politicians very much want the UK to remain one country.

True, however the Tory party were fully aware of these implications yet still decided to implement Brexit in such a way that antagonised (or worse, ignored the demands of) the unionists in Northern Ireland. I shudder to think how DUP politicians now must feel about supporting the Tories back in 2017 in forming an effective majority.

I suspect many Tories didn't think about the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland or Scotland, or didn't care. Either way it shows they were more committed to Brexit (and indeed to a hard Brexit rather than any other kind) than to preserving the union itself.

 

[Dai Corner]

I suspect many Tories didn't think about the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland or Scotland, or didn't care. Either way it shows they were more committed to Brexit (and indeed to a hard Brexit rather than any other kind) than to preserving the union itself.

Do you think that if we'd stayed in the EU, either by voting to do so in the referendum or by subsequently electing a UK Government with a mandate to do so, that all those campaigning to break up the UK would have changed their minds?

 

[edwin_m]

Do you think that if we'd stayed in the EU, either by voting to do so in the referendum or by subsequently electing a UK Government with a mandate to do so, that all those campaigning to break up the UK would have changed their minds?

erm...

Let's not have the Brexit referendum debate all over again in this thread.

My point is that the way Brexit was done, and arguably the decision to go for a referendum in the first place, has been incredibly divisive. It destroys any notion that the Tory party in its current form walks the walk on being pro-Union, it only talks the talk and waves the flag at every opportunity. This also means that Boris Johnson is about the worst possible person to heal those division.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That is what I am rather confused by. Are you saying they took a calculated risk in their actions knowing the damage it would do to sentiments amongst Scottish people towards the union but betting that it would not be sufficient to overthrow the union in the long run, or that they were willing to sacrifice the union (and hence their principles) in pursuit of their own political ends? When you say "very unfortunate consequence of other actions that they needed to take", what are the actions they needed (as opposed to wanted) to take?

Politics is always going to involve balancing different competing demands and having to compromise in some areas. And yes, I think there was a calculated risk there (as well as possibly a genuine lack of understanding of the sentiment in Scotland and NI). But remember, we were in a situation where the referendum had gone in favour of Brexit. Yes, at the time lots of remainers were arguing that we could leave the EU but stay in the single market, but there was a strong feeling amongst many on the Brexit side that that would have not been a proper Brexit and would have amounted to a betrayal of a democratic referendum result. Obviously you can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that was how many people in the Tory party felt at the time. I don't think it's hard to see how, in that situation, Tory politicians would feel that the best (or at least, the least bad) option was to risk annoying the Ulster Unionists and Scottish Nationalists by going for hard-ish Brexit, even though that slightly increased the risk of a Union-breakup which they didn't want. Plus of course, many Tories did as a matter of priority want to leave the EU and single market, in the belief that trade deals outside the EU was the way forward. (Personally I think they were wrong, but that is what they believed).

 

[edwin_m]

Politics is always going to involve balancing different competing demands and having to compromise in some areas. And yes, I think there was a calculated risk there (as well as possibly a genuine lack of understanding of the sentiment in Scotland and NI). But remember, we were in a situation where the referendum had gone in favour of Brexit. Yes, at the time lots of remainers were arguing that we could leave the EU but stay in the single market, but there was a strong feeling amongst many on the Brexit side that that would have not been a proper Brexit and would have amounted to a betrayal of a democratic referendum result. Obviously you can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that was how many people in the Tory party felt at the time. I don't think it's hard to see how, in that situation, Tory politicians would feel that the best (or at least, the least bad) option was to risk annoying the Ulster Unionists and Scottish Nationalists by going for hard-ish Brexit, even though that slightly increased the risk of a Union-breakup which they didn't want. Plus of course, many Tories did as a matter of priority want to leave the EU and single market, in the belief that trade deals outside the EU was the way forward. (Personally I think they were wrong, but that is what they believed).

Which aligns with my view that they considered getting their preferred form of Brexit was more important than preserving the union.

 

[alex397]

A Tory MP has been filmed telling a member of the public to [expletive] off. MP Nigel Adams was filmed outside the Houses of Parliament being asked intensive questions by ‘Mr Stop Brexit’ Steve Bray - I am imagine he is highly irritating, however the professional thing to do would surely be to try and answer the questions, or even just ignore him.

The part which I think is relevant to this thread is the reaction from the MP’s ‘spokesperson’, which is as follows:

Mr Bray has spent the last few years harassing, following and hurling abuse at elected Parliamentarians as well as interrupting journalists, preventing some from doing their job of reporting the news and conducting interviews.
"Mr Adams' remarks no doubt reflect those of many democratic representatives trying to deliver on the will of the people and others seeking to go about their business who have been harassed or had their work disrupted by this individual and his handful of followers."

As long as members of the public are not being threatening, surely this is part of democracy? People will disagree with you, and MPs should surely act professionally rather than swearing at them, no matter how annoying they are.
Surely, in the past most MPs would be apologising for such behaviour?

MP Nigel Adams filmed swearing at Mr Stop Brexit Steve Bray

Nigel Adams defends his response to campaigner Steve Bray accusing him of harassing politicians.

www.bbc.co.uk

MP Nigel Adams filmed swearing at Mr Stop Brexit Steve Bray​

3 hours ago
Steve Bray uploaded the exchange between the two men to Twitter
A minister has been filmed swearing at a veteran pro-EU campaigner who approached him outside the Houses of Parliament.
Steve Bray, known as Mr Stop Brexit, uploaded the clip of his exchange with Foreign Office minister Nigel Adams.
The footage shows Mr Adams give the four-letter response at least twice as Mr Bray attempts to question him.
A spokesperson for the MP said his remarks "no doubt reflect those of many democratic representatives".
The video, shared on social media by Mr Bray, shows the pair talking in the street on Wednesday evening following the Commons vote on a tax increase to help fund health and social care.

Steve Bray became known for his shouts of "Stop Brexit" and waving placards in the background of live TV broadcasts near Parliament
After questioning Mr Adams about the tax increase, the MP responds: "I'm really not interested in talking to an odd bloke with a top hat on chasing me down the street".
He then tells Mr Bray, from Port Talbot in Wales, to "talk to your own MP" and swears at him.
The 52-year-old campaigner became a regular sight outside Parliament following the EU referendum, with Mr Bray repeatedly interrupting live TV broadcasts with his cries of "stop Brexit".
Speaking to BBC Radio York, he said: "You should be able to ask an MP a question without being told where to go.
"This is at Parliament, it's not as if I'm on his doorstep at his house, this is the seat of power - if you write to these MPs, half of them don't reply.
"I don't harass MPs, I ask them questions and I like to think I'm speaking for other people who can't be there to ask those questions."

Mr Adams is the minister for Asia at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
In a statement, a spokesperson for Selby and Ainsty MP Mr Adams said: "Mr Bray has spent the last few years harassing, following and hurling abuse at elected Parliamentarians as well as interrupting journalists, preventing some from doing their job of reporting the news and conducting interviews.
"Mr Adams' remarks no doubt reflect those of many democratic representatives trying to deliver on the will of the people and others seeking to go about their business who have been harassed or had their work disrupted by this individual and his handful of followers."

The video reminds me of when BBC Watchdog go after Rogue Traders. Not a good look.

 

[yorksrob]

A Tory MP has been filmed telling a member of the public to [expletive] off. MP Nigel Adams was filmed outside the Houses of Parliament being asked intensive questions by ‘Mr Stop Brexit’ Steve Bray - I am imagine he is highly irritating, however the professional thing to do would surely be to try and answer the questions, or even just ignore him.

The part which I think is relevant to this thread is the reaction from the MP’s ‘spokesperson’, which is as follows:

As long as members of the public are not being threatening, surely this is part of democracy? People will disagree with you, and MPs should surely act professionally rather than swearing at them, no matter how annoying they are.
Surely, in the past most MPs would be apologising for such behaviour?

MP Nigel Adams filmed swearing at Mr Stop Brexit Steve Bray

Nigel Adams defends his response to campaigner Steve Bray accusing him of harassing politicians.

www.bbc.co.uk

Indeed.

A simple "no comment" would have done.

I think most politicians would have acknowledged the heat of the moment and apologised in such circumstances.

That said it's probably fairly tame in comparison to Mr Prescott's two jabs ! (Unless you're my parents, who will tolerate any amount of goory violence on TV, but go into apoplexy if I do much as say "bl**dy" ).

 

[alex397]

Indeed.

A simple "no comment" would have done.

I think most politicians would have acknowledged the heat of the moment and apologised in such circumstances.

That said it's probably fairly tame in comparison to Mr Prescott's two jabs !

I can sort of understand MPs reacting in such a way especially after a possibly stressful day, but they should be apologising. It must be full on having random people coming up to answer intensive questions, but that’s not the way they should really react.

I think this is different to Prescott - having eggs thrown at him certainly wasn’t ‘democratic’ and rightly a criminal offence - although his reaction certainly was a little over the top!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which aligns with my view that they considered getting their preferred form of Brexit was more important than preserving the union.

Kinda, but the comparison doesn't really work because you're setting a *certainty* of getting the chosen Brexit outcome against a *small possibility* of the Union breaking up.

To put some hypothetical numbers on it, suppose you're a Tory minister, you want a hard Brexit, and you also want to keep the Union. You regard keeping the Union as twice as important as getting a hard Brexit, so if it was all certainties you'd opt to accept a soft Brexit and keep the Union. But it's not certainties: If, say, you reckon going for a hard Brexit leads to a 10% chance of losing the Union, then the rational thing to do is go for the hard Brexit, because then you have a 90% chance of getting both the things you want. Go for a soft Brexit and you have a 100% chance of getting only one of the things you want. From your perspective, that's a worse outcome, even though you view the Union as more important.

 

[yorksrob]

I can sort of understand MPs reacting in such a way especially after a possibly stressful day, but they should be apologising. It must be full on having random people coming up to answer intensive questions, but that’s not the way they should really react.

I think this is different to Prescott - having eggs thrown at him certainly wasn’t ‘democratic’ and rightly a criminal offence - although his reaction certainly was a little over the top!

I agree.

With regards to Prescott, I think most people sympathised with him to an extent under the circumstance (myself included), hence it didn't really affect his political career.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2021 ==

Kinda, but the comparison doesn't really work because you're setting a *certainty* of getting the chosen Brexit outcome against a *small possibility* of the Union breaking up.

To put some hypothetical numbers on it, suppose you're a Tory minister, you want a hard Brexit, and you also want to keep the Union. You regard keeping the Union as twice as important as getting a hard Brexit, so if it was all certainties you'd opt to accept a soft Brexit and keep the Union. But it's not certainties: If, say, you reckon going for a hard Brexit leads to a 10% chance of losing the Union, then the rational thing to do is go for the hard Brexit, because then you have a 90% chance of getting both the things you want. Go for a soft Brexit and you have a 100% chance of getting only one of the things you want. From your perspective, that's a worse outcome, even though you view the Union as more important.

It's an impossible calculation.

I'm inclined to think that the Government should have given the public a plebiscite of the options (along the lines of the indicative vote options held in the commons) to decide what to do next.

Of course, there's no guarantee that opinions still wouldn't be split along country lines again.