Aceris
7211
Sadly this is a unicorn. The LDs will get 25 seats tops. If they have the balance of power they can stop bad legislation and maybe enforce a referendum that Labour have conceded on anyway, but that’s the limit, because there’s no plausible coalition with the tories given brexit. If the LDs got like 80 seats and a vote share up close to Lab they would have leverage to at least try to insist on a Starmer premiership or similar (my preferred plausible outcome when the election started - and I hate Keir Starmer).
But that’s what a Corbyn premiership means. These organisations have no real ability to resist a determined executive (and we both know that shredding the security services is something Corbyn actually cares about). Every time I think about this it makes part of me want to vote tory in case the lib dems let Corbyn in. This election is oh so very depressing.
This is profoundly antidemocratic.
Aceris
7213
A second brexit referendum is profoundly antidemocratic but we seem to have decided that is desireable.
No, I don’t think that’s true. And the people who win the election fairly shouldn’t be allowed to govern is undemocratic in a completely different, far more serious way. One allows the people to have a voice, while the other silences them.
Yeah let’s copy the US and let Russian controlled factions win govt. What could go wrong. We already know what it looks like when an executive is openly hostile to its own intelligence services and foreign office in favour of an aggressive and malicious foreign power. Its a shit show.
It’s hard not to conclude that you’re just a crank. But even you can understand the distinction between winning a fair election and winning a crooked one.
I don’t care. STWC and their allies are genuinely dangerous people with a deep ideological hatred of the the UK and Western values.
If they all disappeared overnight into a secret Tajik prison I wouldn’t blink.
Yes, this is exactly the rational that the right uses in my country to declare any elected person from the left illegitimate, and it is the basis of their efforts to flout the law and destroy our institutions to prevent that outcome.
Aceris
7219
I agree it’s more serious, but it’s completely the same. Ultimately it’s whether the exercise of the franchise has effect or not.
How do the military and intelligence agencies protect themselves against a manchurian candidate scenario without compromising civilian control? It’s very much a live issue in our post-2016 worst timeline world.
EDIT: And the same/similar questions apply in the scenario that the tories win and Boris is as fascistic as some of the posters here believe (personally I think he’s a common-or-garden populist with no stomach for extreme measures, but I’ve been wrong about Boris before). How do the institutions resist him? Indeed in that scenario the resistance would in a way have even less legitimacy from a democratic perspective as Boris would actually have a majority.
No. In another referendum, the people still have a voice. In nullifying an election, the people have no voice. That’s a massive distinction.
By adhering to the rule of law? If the new government breaks the law, raise hell. But don’t deny their legitimacy because you think they might do that.
Aceris
7221
After an election the people don’t (necessarily) get a choice for 5 years. Corbyn can do all kinds of things the people had no idea he intended to do. It’s exactly the same argument used to justify a second referendum (“the people didn’t know what was going to happen”).
The process of me slowly coming around to the idea of a second referendum has made me much more relaxed about “deep state” shenanigans to stop Corbyn and his clique committing what would be treason if anyone but the PM did it.
The only way that happens is if the people elect MPs willing to do this. But to do so would be an act of democracy. A paradox!
Edit: Also, everyone posting about the ‘deep state’ preventing elected representatives from governing is terrifying and at least a little conspiracy theoryish.
Still, in a second referendum, the people get to vote. In an institutional refusal to let the winning party govern, the people get no voice. Isn’t that the distinction?
These aren’t normal circumstances. No one thought that Trumps govt would exist until it did. We now live in a world where fringe extremists empowered by foreign govts can gain power using a system structured for the normal majority.
Murrays history with Putin and the SVR is just as freaky as the worst of Trump’s people. And that’s just a tiny part of STWCs (and other groups in the hard left like CAGE) myriad issues as anti-West organisations. The establishment isn’t going to let them in. We can’t have ISIS supporters sharing anti-terror intelligence. Whatever the establishment does will no doubt be illegal and perhaps yes, anti-democratic but I’m pragmatic enough to look the other way due to the dangers involved.
Aceris
7225
The point I was making is that “profoundly antidemocratic” is an argument I’m finding a lot less convincing than I would have a year ago.
I don’t see how any supporter of EU membership could possibly disagree :) After all:
“‘If it’s a Yes, we will say “On we go”. If it’s a No, we will say “We continue”.’”
Aceris
7226
If anything, Corbyn could be worse as anti-Americanism isn’t a core part of Trump’s ideology (inasmuch as he has one) whereas anti-british ideas are at the very heart of Corbyn’s political career and shared by his entire core team.
Tim_N
7227
My experience is that everyone has gone at least a little crazy since 2015. Russian agents are either everywhere or nowhere depending on your political persuasion.
Aceris
7228
It’s hardly a new concept. It comes around every so often. Ultimately these people are in the business of conspiracies. I don’t buy the “accidents and medical issues” line (that is terrifying). but lost files and incomplete briefings? Absolutely. Resources that are available denied, things that are possible said to be impossible? Inevitably.
The British intelligence services have murdered Brits before, remember?
UK popular culture has rogue establishment at the heart of things for a long time. A Very British Coup, Bodyguard etc so I can only hope there is no smoke without fire. However the attacks against Murray, Milne and others in the leaders office have been pretty weak and from tabloids only so far. They should be using more centre leaning sources and things like Caroline Lucas leaving STWC when they supported IS in the Bataclan Massacre, ie differentiate anti-war people from anti-West diehards.
If says presumed suicide in the Wikipedia article. I’m sure if you already believe this theory it’s a good example, but it’s not evidence for anyone who doesn’t already believe!
