Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

UK voting history suggests otherwise.
And beside, who cares what the opposition says? The Tories don't.
You push legislation through piece by price over one or two parliamentary terms to normalise it. Easily done, especially with fixed term parliaments.
Change of Govt rarely leads to mass changes in legislation, that would be destabilising.
And besides, we will to "somewhere else" for identity, and we won't look East because we just left.
That only leaves North (possible if we can get labour In power) or West, which is most likely because many Brits still admire the positives of the US without an appreciation of the trade offs

The whole point is that our government has become neutered/neutered itself, and it needs to start bringing some proper policies and conviction to the table. On all sides.

And with Brexit, and the inevitable brick show that follows, the people should be demanding this.

At which point, things should work much more as they should - IE - politicians have policies to serve the countries best interests, and the people decide which flavour they prefer.

If the Tories really are the absolute horror show people predict, Labour should be in opposition to them and get a majority based on a manifesto to change all the brick we dont like.

 

[monkeybarry]

The whole point is that our government has become neutered/neutered itself, and it needs to start bringing some proper policies and conviction to the table. On all sides.

And with Brexit, and the inevitable brick show that follows, the people should be demanding this.

At which point, things should work much more as they should - IE - politicians have policies to serve the countries best interests, and the people decide which flavour they prefer.

If the Tories really are the absolute horror show people predict, Labour should be in opposition to them and get a majority based on a manifesto to change all the brick we dont like.

I agree with all the above. I just styruggs to think of a time in UK politics where this exists except for post WWII and post the crash that saw Thatcher take power.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I agree with all the above. I just styruggs to think of a time in UK politics where this exists except for post WWII and post the crash that saw Thatcher take power.

For years its been the politics of spin.

Instead of "I believe in this, and this is why you should vote for me" it has become a pantomime of "Dont vote for that clam, and heres why".

Started with Blair to my memory, all the xfactor flimflam as opposed to proper policy.

Brexit is a great opportunity to shake all that up.

Which isnt to say its the EUs fault, but is to say people are seeing real and genuine change based on a vote, and with the issues likely to follow - will want to see more real and genuine change following.

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1044161306918604800

 

[scaramanga]

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.

Maybe it was just that the Lib Dems did a really bad job of convincing their own demographic how to vote.

 

[scaramanga]

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.

Vote for me, free rainbows for everyone.

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1044166841587965953

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1044166841587965953

The man is a joke. Amazes me anybody takes him seriously at all.

 

[the dza]

The man is a joke. Amazes me anybody takes him seriously at all.

If I'm not mistaken, in that tweeted picture is Rees-Mogg and Davies. Whatever you think of them (can't stand Mogg but Davies seems like a fairly decent sort) they do believe in their version of Brexit, they aren't saying we should Brexit because that's what they think people want to hear. Johnson doesn't believe in anything that I can tell, other than he thinks he should have a play at being Prime Minister. He's like Cameron in that respect. It's a game to him, nothing underpins his world view other than his own sense of entitlement.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

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."

Jim Jeffries - an amazing man. I do have a lot of time for Peterson though - I think in his heart he's quite a gentle liberal astonished by the world around him. And you're right, milking it for all he can - don't blame him for that: if he's getting people talking and listening (and listening seems to be his big thing), it can only be good in the end. I do think he's funny as well, and I like the fact he admits when he's got his thinking wrong - if only more people did.

Labour seem to be shifting (reluctantly) as we speak. Brexit does fulfil the Leadership's dream a social utopia in the UK, though that will never happen - I'm disappointed in them. I would LOVE one party to unequivocally come out in favour of Remain and then at least I feel my kids - who are gobsmacked by the whole thing - can feel they have a future as Euro citizens, which is what they want.

The head of the Students Union was on the radio last week - she said this: something like 2 million Brexit voters have died since the referendum and 1.8m new, young voters are registered. The argument is far more knowledgable now - put it back to the people.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

If I'm not mistaken, in that tweeted picture is Rees-Mogg and Davies. Whatever you think of them (can't stand Mogg but Davies seems like a fairly decent sort) they do believe in their version of Brexit, they aren't saying we should Brexit because that's what they think people want to hear. Johnson doesn't believe in anything that I can tell, other than he thinks he should have a play at being Prime Minister. He's like Cameron in that respect. It's a game to him, nothing underpins his world view other than his own sense of entitlement.

Absolutely agree, but - Cameron was competent at playing the game (smarmy brick), Boris is a rank amateur.

Boris thinks he is clever, but the opposite is blatantly obvious.

Not only does it show him for the fudging idiot he is, but also the rather dark side of his ambitions. He literally will sell the country down the river to satisfy his desire to be PM.

I am glad his popularity appears to be waning, long may it continue - its about time.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

can feel they have a future as Euro citizens, which is what they want.

What is this supposed to mean?

That post Brexit your kids will not be able to live or work in europe? Travel?

Are you sure?

 

[scaramanga]

Jim Jeffries - an amazing man. I do have a lot of time for Peterson though - I think in his heart he's quite a gentle liberal astonished by the world around him. And you're right, milking it for all he can - don't blame him for that: if he's getting people talking and listening (and listening seems to be his big thing), it can only be good in the end. I do think he's funny as well, and I like the fact he admits when he's got his thinking wrong - if only more people did.

Labour seem to be shifting (reluctantly) as we speak. Brexit does fulfil the Leadership's dream a social utopia in the UK, though that will never happen - I'm disappointed in them. I would LOVE one party to unequivocally come out in favour of Remain and then at least I feel my kids - who are gobsmacked by the whole thing - can feel they have a future as Euro citizens, which is what they want.

The head of the Students Union was on the radio last week - she said this: something like 2 million Brexit voters have died since the referendum and 1.8m new, young voters are registered. The argument is far more knowledgable now - put it back to the people.

Sounds a bit like P hacking to me.

 

[the dza]

Labour seem to be shifting (reluctantly) as we speak. Brexit does fulfil the Leadership's dream a social utopia in the UK, though that will never happen - I'm disappointed in them. I would LOVE one party to unequivocally come out in favour of Remain and then at least I feel my kids - who are gobsmacked by the whole thing - can feel they have a future as Euro citizens, which is what they want.

A little while ago, a few of us in this thread were talking about a hypothetical 2nd vote. Initially, I thought that the choices should be something like Remain/Norway/Canada/WTO.

IMO, any choices given in a 2nd vote should be ones that are ready to go with the EU -- so we can't have "Chequers" on there knowing that the EU rejects it. But then @nayimfromthehalfwayline made a good point, asking why should Remain be on a 2nd vote? We have already voted as a country to leave, so the choices should be on how we leave. And that's a very fair point.

But then I think we also came to the conclusion that the Norway option is basically like remaining, but worse because we have no power within the EU. So perhaps remain should be on there afterall.

I am in favour of the final decision being put to a final vote. But I am a bit wary of what the question will be. In hindsight, I think we can see the question in the first referendum wasn't adequate. We voted to leave, but to leave means different things depending on who you ask. To some it's Norway, to some it's Canada, to some it's WTO.

To be honest, I think that these are the 3 choices we have. Yes, Norway is like a worse version of what we currently have (with perhaps some minor benefits). But it does mean we technically leave, so it makes it more valid in a 2nd referendum than a Remain option (which can be charged as asking the same question again and again until we get the result we like).

So yeah, after that ramble, I think I'd like to see a 2nd vote with 3 choices: Norway, Canada and WTO. All are actually do-able with the EU, all present their own problems, nothing quite solves N. Ireland. But I think this is where we are. And I'd vote Norway.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

What is this supposed to mean?

That post Brexit your kids will not be able to live or work in europe? Travel?

Are you sure?

No-one knows - this is the point I think. I guess it depends on loony right Brexit or some kind of compromise. You see, I don't even know and I've been following at all like a friggin' hawk... I can't answer my kid's questions and it's really disempowering.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

"Technically" leaving is utterly pointless. Id rather remain than go Norway, but I do believe remain should not be on the ballot.

Voting in what leave looks like seems fair, though I fear Remainers piling into Norway just to keep hold of some semblance of remaining in, which would be a genuine disaster IMO.

I also think, there needs to be some sort of deal presented. Its looking less likely, but we have to hold hope of some compromise over the next month or so.

Ultimately I still do not buy into the "cherry picking" nonsense. Or even the "we only want the best bits" nonsense.

We want to trade, which is good for all.

We dont want to put into the budget, but we also dont want to take out of it either.

We dont want free movement of people - but plenty of other countries actively thrive with it.

What is good for us is not necessarily good for all, and vice versa.

Plenty (most?) EU nations take more out of the budget than they put in. They gladly recieve the hand outs - we are opting out of that.

Plenty of countries emigrate for work, or are stronger for immigration - we are opting out of that.

But - hey - take our money and buy our goods. Is it really such a wild thing to propose?

 

[scaramanga]

A little while ago, a few of us in this thread were talking about a hypothetical 2nd vote. Initially, I thought that the choices should be something like Remain/Norway/Canada/WTO.

IMO, any choices given in a 2nd vote should be ones that are ready to go with the EU -- so we can't have "Chequers" on there knowing that the EU rejects it. But then @nayimfromthehalfwayline made a good point, asking why should Remain be on a 2nd vote? We have already voted as a country to leave, so the choices should be on how we leave. And that's a very fair point.

But then I think we also came to the conclusion that the Norway option is basically like remaining, but worse because we have no power within the EU. So perhaps remain should be on there afterall.

I am in favour of the final decision being put to a final vote. But I am a bit wary of what the question will be. In hindsight, I think we can see the question in the first referendum wasn't adequate. We voted to leave, but to leave means different things depending on who you ask. To some it's Norway, to some it's Canada, to some it's WTO.

To be honest, I think that these are the 3 choices we have. Yes, Norway is like a worse version of what we currently have (with perhaps some minor benefits). But it does mean we technically leave, so it makes it more valid in a 2nd referendum than a Remain option (which can be charged as asking the same question again and again until we get the result we like).

So yeah, after that ramble, I think I'd like to see a 2nd vote with 3 choices: Norway, Canada and WTO. All are actually do-able with the EU, all present their own problems, nothing quite solves N. Ireland. But I think this is where we are. And I'd vote Norway.

All three of those options are essentially saying we won't negotiate with the EU whatsoever and will give them all of their demands.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

No-one knows - this is the point I think. I guess it depends on loony right Brexit or some kind of compromise. You see, I don't even know and I've been following at all like a friggin' hawk... I can't answer my kid's questions and it's really disempowering.

Whatever happens, your kids will be able to work, live and travel.

It might require some paperwork we dont have now, but immigration and visa's etc are not suddenly going to just stop.

 

[Eatmyownbrainwithaspork]

Maybe it'll be a visa system for travel and work - that'll be a pain in the ass. Plus mine are just at uni or starting in 2 years time - they'd like to take up the option of a year in Europe if possible. I'm thinking that'll disappear but maybe all sides will see the sense in sharing knowledge.

On that point, my daughter was thinking of studying in Germany - about £200 per term at the Film School in Berlin. As it is, she's paying £9250 a year for Leeds (though Leeds is an awesome city to be fair)...

 

[the dza]

All three of those options are essentially saying we won't negotiate with the EU whatsoever and will give them all of their demands.

That maybe true, but this is where the government is heading, is it not? I'd prefer that choice to the choice of Chequers (which won't happen) or WTO.

It's been 2 years and this is where we are at. If there is a 2nd vote, it will happen under this government. I can't see this government doing any better in the negotiations if the past 2 years are anything to go on.