Politics, politics, politics

[Danishfurniturelover]

So it would not bother you if someone in this country in a huge position of influence was actually working for a foreign government as long as they had opinions you agreed with, right I will remember that one.

 

[Robspur12]

So it would not bother you if someone in this country in a huge position of influence was actually working for a foreign government as long as they had opinions you agreed with, right I will remember that one.

Just because you work for a Company, Government etc does not mean you hold the same views? I have worked for several Tory Councils but have never voted for the party in any election. A job is a job, for most people and just that depending on your professionalism.

 

[scaramanga]

Not once their lardy, pie eating hero rode through and stabbed Cameron in the back to assert his leadership credentials. Boris gave credibility to the Leave campaign and was a better campaigner than Cameron. Cameron’s problem was not the deal per se. Most grass roots Tories probably didn’t understand the ins and outs of it.The biggest mistake from Cameron was flip flopping over Europe then failing to make a positive case for remaining.

There's not much love for Boris in the party membership - if there was he'd be PM by now.

And you do much of the membership a disservice by suggesting they didn't understand what Cameron was asking for. There are plenty of swivel-eyed UKIP types admittedly, but they are hugely outnumbered by people who just want lower spending, lower taxes, incentives to work, etc.

 

[scaramanga]

That is true, there are definitely entrenched blocs of leave and remain. But of all the Tory voters who voted in 2015, 2/3rds went for leave. I'm not sure that Cameron and Osborne couldn't have got another 5% to the remain side of the argument if they had campaigned to their own voters in a much better way. Instead, we had Osborne with his pretend emergency budgets and hyperbole and Cameron being Cameron, summed up by him walking away in the immediate aftermath of the referendum result.

I think you're still missing the significance of the preselection bias.

Labour were, at the time, run by Should Have Been His Brother Miliband - a man hugely opposed (in his weird, ineffectual way) to Brexit. The party was a haven for remainders - that's why they lost so many voters to UKiP in 2015.

It's incorrect to say the Labour voters voted remain, more that Remainers voted Labour.

 

[Robspur12]

There's not much love for Boris in the party membership - if there was he'd be PM by now.

I have heard the reverse. He is not popular in the Parliamentary party but very popular with the grass roots.

 

[scaramanga]

I have heard the reverse. He is not popular in the Parliamentary party but very popular with the grass roots.

My work with and for the party is at least two elections out of date, but there was certainly no love for him then outside of the beautiful rage he creates in the Trots.

I do speak with a lot of people who tend to vote Conservative though, and it's rare to hear from someone who thinks he has leadership skills.

 

[the dza]

I think you're still missing the significance of the preselection bias.

Labour were, at the time, run by Should Have Been His Brother Miliband - a man hugely opposed (in his weird, ineffectual way) to Brexit. The party was a haven for remainders - that's why they lost so many voters to UKiP in 2015.

It's incorrect to say the Labour voters voted remain, more that Remainers voted Labour.

If your logic is sound, then UKIP would not have got their largest amount of votes in 2015 -- those voters wanted a referendum more than anybody and Cameron fluked a small majority, it's not like he was nailed on to be able to deliver a referendum. UKIP got almost 4 million votes. So all those voters who wanted the referendum more than anybody risked not getting it delivered by voting for a party that would get maybe 1 MP at best and take votes away from the Tories? If your logic was the prevailing one amongst voters at the time, UKIP would have got hardly any votes, they'd have voted Tory to ensure the referendum went ahead. That did not happen. And we know the UKIP vote will go towards getting Brexit done, because after the referendum was won for leave, the UKIP vote went down to just over 500k in 2017 (job done, the UKIP voters "went home" mostly to the Tory Party).

So no, it is not incorrect so say that Labour voters voted Remain, it is something that has polling evidence behind it and something that plays out among the whole Labour movement (in the majority) from members, to MPs to Trade Unions. Brexit is a Tory mess, they called for it (bluffing) and they have made a pigs ear of everything from the Remain campaign through to the current negotiations.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

If there was a GE in the next few months, I really wouldn't know who to vote for. British politics feels like it's at an unprecedented low. I've always been gently left of centre (though no Blairite). I don't like Big Government, nor do I like unrestrained capitalism and corporate agendas (especially now that much of the Press or MSM is hardly neutral). It's tough. Really tough.

 

[scaramanga]

If your logic is sound, then UKIP would not have got their largest amount of votes in 2015 -- those voters wanted a referendum more than anybody and Cameron fluked a small majority, it's not like he was nailed on to be able to deliver a referendum. UKIP got almost 4 million votes. So all those voters who wanted the referendum more than anybody risked not getting it delivered by voting for a party that would get maybe 1 MP at best and take votes away from the Tories? If your logic was the prevailing one amongst voters at the time, UKIP would have got hardly any votes, they'd have voted Tory to ensure the referendum went ahead. That did not happen. And we know the UKIP vote will go towards getting Brexit done, because after the referendum was won for leave, the UKIP vote went down to just over 500k in 2017 (job done, the UKIP voters "went home" mostly to the Tory Party).

So no, it is not incorrect so say that Labour voters voted Remain, it is something that has polling evidence behind it and something that plays out among the whole Labour movement (in the majority) from members, to MPs to Trade Unions. Brexit is a Tory mess, they called for it (bluffing) and they have made a pigs ear of everything from the Remain campaign through to the current negotiations.

People voted for UKIP en masse because people who vote UKIP are inbred, backwards halfwits who couldn't spell first past the post, let alone understand it.

I've got a factory floor half full of "Stealing our jobs" 'Kippers (including some Poles!) who genuinely though that there was going to be an outcome where they were the second party in this country. Those people aren't capable of tactical voting.

Edit:
These people would also never, ever vote Conservative because they don't understand economics either and they take their political opinions from Spitting Image.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

I live in the North East where the UKIP vote was massive (though much declining now) - I can categorically say that the majority are awful, inward-looking, poorly educated and collectively racist. There are so many reasons for this, poverty being the big one. Individually, the racism disappears (I challenge them all the time) - it''s collectively, the collective ideology that unites around prejudice...mob voice. It's terrifying and really unhelpful - for them, most of all.

30 years of industrial decimation has killed the place. Not that it was sustainable back then, but the lack of inward investment from Westminster was/is cruel. We have no youth service, no Sure Start, no front line social services save the absolute basics, academisation of schools gone mad, little work...I could go on. It feels forgotten. When Universal Credit was rolled out, people were literally starving and food-bank reliant. Under New Labour, things wer moving forward. Under this lot, we've gone back to the 70s.

We seem to be in anm ideological moment - crazy in the right, crazy on the left - free market, corrupt madness on one side and identity politics and neo-Marxism on the other. Jordan Peterson has a lot to say on this - none of it good.

Where's the reasonable centre? Where's integrity? Where's leadership? Where's sheer capability? I'm embarrassed for my kids - unsurprisingly, they're cynical little buggers and it's such a shame.

 

[the dza]

People voted for UKIP en masse because people who vote UKIP are inbred, backwards halfwits who couldn't spell first past the post, let alone understand it.

I've got a factory floor half full of "Stealing our jobs" 'Kippers (including some Poles!) who genuinely though that there was going to be an outcome where they were the second party in this country. Those people aren't capable of tactical voting.

Edit:
These people would also never, ever vote Conservative because they don't understand economics either and they take their political opinions from Spitting Image.

They went and voted Tory again in the 2017 election (some went back to Labour, most went Tory), which is why UKIP's vote collapsed from near 4million to just over 500k.

 

[scaramanga]

They went and voted Tory again in the 2017 election (some went back to Labour, most went Tory), which is why UKIP's vote collapsed from near 4million to just over 500k.

These ones vote Labour or not at all when they don't vote UKIP.

 

[the dza]

I live in the North East where the UKIP vote was massive (though much declining now) - I can categorically say that the majority are awful, inward-looking, poorly educated and collectively racist. There are so many reasons for this, poverty being the big one. Individually, the racism disappears (I challenge them all the time) - it''s collectively, the collective ideology that unites around prejudice...mob voice. It's terrifying and really unhelpful - for them, most of all.

30 years of industrial decimation has killed the place. Not that it was sustainable back then, but the lack of inward investment from Westminster was/is cruel. We have no youth service, no Sure Start, no front line social services save the absolute basics, academisation of schools gone mad, little work...I could go on. It feels forgotten. When Universal Credit was rolled out, people were literally starving and food-bank reliant. Under New Labour, things wer moving forward. Under this lot, we've gone back to the 70s.

We seem to be in anm ideological moment - crazy in the right, crazy on the left - free market, corrupt madness on one side and identity politics and neo-Marxism on the other. Jordan Peterson has a lot to say on this - none of it good.

Where's the reasonable centre? Where's integrity? Where's leadership? Where's sheer capability? I'm embarrassed for my kids - unsurprisingly, they're cynical little buggers and it's such a shame.

I think this is a good post. I think Corbyn and McDonnell do have some crazy/radical stuff in their past as backbench MPs. But the 2017 manifesto wasn't crazy or far left imo. It's just that this country has shifted so far to the right (economically) from Thatcher onwards that it has taken a couple of radical old lefties to shunt things back to a left of centre position. There's nothing in the 2017 manifesto that'd be radical or far-left in much of Western Europe and Scandinavia. The current crop of politicians aren't good enough, but the country must arrest this decline in public services and only Labour are going to try and do that.

And honestly, phuck Jordan Peterson. He might be intelligent within his field but he doesn't have a clue about politics. The comedian Jim Jeffries interviewed him and took about 2 minutes to upend his views on civil rights (to be fair, Peterson acknowledged he was wrong and changed his mind). He is no profound political thinker. But he does know where the money is.

The things you mention: Sure Start disappearing, rollout of Universal Credit, academisation of schools, lack of investment in the north...only Labour is going to even attempt to reverse these things. You might not like the Labour leadership as individuals, but they are the only ones offering to change this situation. The Tories will gladly continue on with it and I don't know how much more homelessness has to rise, foodbank use has to go up, prisons to continue to decline, NHS has to struggle, police have to struggle before people say "enough is enough."

 

[the dza]

These ones vote Labour or not at all when they don't vote UKIP.

Right, but polling shows that overall they mostly either went Tory in 2017 or did not vote. (45% of UKIP's 2015 voters voted Tory in 2017, 30% of UKIP's 2015 voters did not vote in 2017).

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/how-did-2015-voters-cast-their-ballot-2017-general/

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I think this is a good post. I think Corbyn and McDonnell do have some crazy/radical stuff in their past as backbench MPs. But the 2017 manifesto wasn't crazy or far left imo. It's just that this country has shifted so far to the right (economically) from Thatcher onwards that it has taken a couple of radical old lefties to shunt things back to a left of centre position. There's nothing in the 2017 manifesto that'd be radical or far-left in much of Western Europe and Scandinavia. The current crop of politicians aren't good enough, but the country must arrest this decline in public services and only Labour are going to try and do that.

And honestly, phuck Jordan Peterson. He might be intelligent within his field but he doesn't have a clue about politics. The comedian Jim Jeffries interviewed him and took about 2 minutes to upend his views on civil rights (to be fair, Peterson acknowledged he was wrong and changed his mind). He is no profound political thinker. But he does know where the money is.

The things you mention: Sure Start disappearing, rollout of Universal Credit, academisation of schools, lack of investment in the north...only Labour is going to even attempt to reverse these things. You might not like the Labour leadership as individuals, but they are the only ones offering to change this situation. The Tories will gladly continue on with it and I don't know how much more homelessness has to rise, foodbank use has to go up, prisons to continue to decline, NHS has to struggle, police have to struggle before people say "enough is enough."

The 2017 manifesto was soft left, agreed. The idea that 10% of equity be forcibly redistributed to staff is pretty outré though. That level of dilution would play havoc with investment financing. All the signs are that the next Labour manifesto will be very, very difficult for a pragmatist to support.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If there was a GE in the next few months, I really wouldn't know who to vote for. British politics feels like it's at an unprecedented low. I've always been gently left of centre (though no Blairite). I don't like Big Government, nor do I like unrestrained capitalism and corporate agendas (especially now that much of the Press or MSM is hardly neutral). It's tough. Really tough.

That sounds slightly left libertarian (i.e. neither the statism of labour/lib dems nor the corporatism of conservatives). What about Greens?

They are harmoniously divided over Brexit too - traditionally Eurospectic as a movement and pro-Brexit in the Lords, but anti-Brexit in the Commons/London Assembly

 

[the dza]

The 2017 manifesto was soft left, agreed. The idea that 10% of equity be forcibly redistributed to staff is pretty outré though. That level of dilution would play havoc with investment financing. All the signs are that the next Labour manifesto will be very, very difficult for a pragmatist to support.

We'll have to judge the next manifesto when it comes out I suppose. I don't think any political party will publish a manifesto where I agree with everything, but if I broadly agree with most of the ideas then that is good enough for the moment. That's how I feel about the 2017 manifesto and I assume the next one will be based largely on that.

 

[scaramanga]

Right, but polling shows that overall they mostly either went Tory in 2017 or did not vote. (45% of UKIP's 2015 voters voted Tory in 2017, 30% of UKIP's 2015 voters did not vote in 2017).

Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/how-did-2015-voters-cast-their-ballot-2017-general/

Meaning that there's even less chance that Cameron could have converted the Conservative vote to Remain. I'll lay it out in a timeline for you:

1. NuLab are soft on immigration (as perceived by gammon people)
2. People for whom stopping immigration is important stop voting Labour and vote UKIP
3. People stop voting UKIP because there's no longer a need for that party to exist
4. Gammon people don't vote Labour because they're still perceived as soft on immigration
5. Labour now has a voter base heavily loaded with Remain types
6. Conservatives/UKIP have voter bases heavily loaded with Leave types. Therefore;
7. Labour voters vote heavily to remain, Conservative voters vote heavily to leave

But that core of gammon voters are not traditionally tied to the Conservatives as voters. They are (on the whole) working class people who feel that their lack of education and willingness to retrain is entirely the fault of those brown people with degrees who keep taking all the good jobs. As this is such an important issue for them, it's led to a surge in voting for parties that are more likely to deliver Brexit (and, ironically, ensure that a larger proportion of immigrants are more highly skilled, leading to more of the good jobs being taken by them).

 

[scaramanga]

I think this is a good post. I think Corbyn and McDonnell do have some crazy/radical stuff in their past as backbench MPs. But the 2017 manifesto wasn't crazy or far left imo. It's just that this country has shifted so far to the right (economically) from Thatcher onwards that it has taken a couple of radical old lefties to shunt things back to a left of centre position. There's nothing in the 2017 manifesto that'd be radical or far-left in much of Western Europe and Scandinavia. The current crop of politicians aren't good enough, but the country must arrest this decline in public services and only Labour are going to try and do that.

And honestly, phuck Jordan Peterson. He might be intelligent within his field but he doesn't have a clue about politics. The comedian Jim Jeffries interviewed him and took about 2 minutes to upend his views on civil rights (to be fair, Peterson acknowledged he was wrong and changed his mind). He is no profound political thinker. But he does know where the money is.

The things you mention: Sure Start disappearing, rollout of Universal Credit, academisation of schools, lack of investment in the north...only Labour is going to even attempt to reverse these things. You might not like the Labour leadership as individuals, but they are the only ones offering to change this situation. The Tories will gladly continue on with it and I don't know how much more homelessness has to rise, foodbank use has to go up, prisons to continue to decline, NHS has to struggle, police have to struggle before people say "enough is enough."

Did the current leadership inherit Should Have Been David's money tree?

 

[the dza]

Meaning that there's even less chance that Cameron could have converted the Conservative vote to Remain. I'll lay it out in a timeline for you:

1. NuLab are soft on immigration (as perceived by gammon people)
2. People for whom stopping immigration is important stop voting Labour and vote UKIP
3. People stop voting UKIP because there's no longer a need for that party to exist
4. Gammon people don't vote Labour because they're still perceived as soft on immigration
5. Labour now has a voter base heavily loaded with Remain types
6. Conservatives/UKIP have voter bases heavily loaded with Leave types. Therefore;
7. Labour voters vote heavily to remain, Conservative voters vote heavily to leave

But that core of gammon voters are not traditionally tied to the Conservatives as voters. They are (on the whole) working class people who feel that their lack of education and willingness to retrain is entirely the fault of those brown people with degrees who keep taking all the good jobs. As this is such an important issue for them, it's led to a surge in voting for parties that are more likely to deliver Brexit (and, ironically, ensure that a larger proportion of immigrants are more highly skilled, leading to more of the good jobs being taken by them).

He didn't have to take the whole Tory vote with him, just enough to sway the referendum for leave. Like any election, there are swing voters and Cameron didn't persuade enough of them. Both he and Osborne failed in this task. Osborne basically threatened his electorate "Vote Brexit and we'll punish you with a punitive budget!" Any Tory voters who were on the fence would have been tipped to the leave side by such terrible campaigning.

Also, your timeline isn't accurate if you are trying to defend Cameron -- the party voting blocs split more along leave/remain lines after the referendum (which showed in the 2017 election results), not in the 2015 election. So the Lib Dems weren't supporting a referendum in 2015. But by the 2017 election, 33% of Lib Dem remainers went to Labour, 37% of Lib Dems who voted leave went to the Tories. If the promise of a referendum was the big dividing factor in 2015, you'd have expected Lib Dems who ended up voting to leave to have moved to the Tories beforehand so as to ensure the referendum (or Lib Dems who voted remain to vote Labour to ensure that there isn't a referendum). Polling from both ends of the spectrum (UKIP and Lib Dem) doesn't support the theory of voters dividing on referendum lines in the 2015 election.