Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Tyndall on “Laying the groundwork for an ‘Out’ vote
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Tyndall on “Laying the groundwork for an ‘Out’ vote”
It has been generally accepted that the ‘Out’ side currently face an uphill fight to try and win the referendum which will be held at some point over the next two or so years.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab.
If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in, but with less say? No thanks.
I could see myself voting for IN on the basis of keeping free movement of Labour, but I don't think I'd vote for IN to preserve our membership of the Common Agricultural Policy...
Anyway, nice article. I applaud how clearly you've separated the issues of immigration and EU membership. UKIP has failed to adequately do this, probably as deliberate policy.
Choosing a leader who will be inclusive enough will be very, very hard. UKIP are way too toxic, the Tories are probably too toxic, and Labour politicians just aren't sufficiently zealous on the issue. And I don't think an industry figure could win the - possible decisive - Battle of the Rhetoric. Tricky, tricky, tricky.
I don't think that Hooey and Field are remotely well known enough - or personally engaging enough - to lead a campaign; while I doubt Hannan's NHS views will have much relevance, so he should definitely play a central role. I agree that Farage would be a liability - though it's worth remembering that unlike in the GE he will have a lot of the popular press fully on his side. I also wonder how someone not used to close interrogation - Dyson or Bamford - would stand up to the scrutiny that the campaign would bring. The No side's best bet might be a non-political TV regular - a presenter of some kind who knows how to stay calm under the lights and can be fluent under pressure.
This short piece from one of the Norwegian ministers clarifies that nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8GpzDDurR8
As she points out the UK has very limited influence on world trade talks as part of the EU whilst Norway has full participation.
And you are ignoring the fact that whilst we could be outvoted whilst we are inside the EU, if we were part of EFTA we would, ultimately, have a veto on legislation that we thought was fundamentally at odds with our interests.
The only problem is that, in order not to show disloyalty and bad faith, you probably can't resign from the government until the renegotiation is complete. And that might be a bit too late.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/labour-party-equality
(ie I agree with it completely)
It's worth reading from start to finish, but the following passages need to be read over and over:
"Educated progressives and liberals tend to welcome change, are comfortable with mobility (their own and other people’s), and not especially bothered about belonging, indeed are suspicious of most group allegiances. Yet most voters are more likely to see change as loss and – without being sentimental for the often oppressive communities of 1950s Britain – want to live in relatively stable places with a high level of trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness. And most people place the interests of fellow members of the local or national club before outsiders. This is the spectrum which finds most voters in a very different place from today’s Labour party.
On social mobility too, Labour’s graduate professionals seem to be saying: climb those ladders as we did. Of course, Labour should be on the side of ladder climbers, but it has been insufficiently sensitive to the shadow they cast over those who cannot or do not want to climb with them. Just as London can make the rest of the country feel inconsequential, so those who get to university and into the top part of the labour market can make those millions of decent, responsible people doing ordinary jobs feel like failures."
"A country with a large group of strivers, but also decent pay and status for those who stay put and do basic jobs, is something that is becoming harder to achieve – both financially and psychologically – as the labour market and the education system increasingly divide into insiders (mobile professionals/graduates) and outsiders (immobile people without A-levels doing often basic jobs). This is a problem for all advanced countriesand for all political parties, but Labour should have made this aspect of inequality central to its story instead of fixating on the super-rich."
"The election was a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism – against mass immigration, further European integration, and the high-churn society that discomforts so many people. It was also a vote against London – the city that most represents those things. United against it were not just SNP and Ukip voters but many Tory and Labour ones. Yet London is Labour’s new heartland."
The problem with the immigration point is that, although it might not be a negative, BOO would like it to be able to campaign on it. The EU undermines wages, puts Britons out of work, attracts criminals etc. etc. BOO will find it harder to campaign without it on the table.
For all that I wanted UKIP to do well at the GE we have to recognise the limitations of a marmite politician in a referendum where there can be no second place prize. That is not to say Farage couldn't be involved at all in the campaign but he shoudlcertatinly not be seen as the leader.
Good article, by the way, Richard Tyndall.
I'm on for pocket change.
European Parliament election (2014) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.65%
General election (2015) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.4%
I'm really very surprised at how close those two figures are.
"A truly fantastic article by David Goodhart."
A surprisingly un-Guardian-like article and far too sensible.
EFTA is a nonentity. You have not mentioned or barely touched upon the real possible motive for formally leaving the EU and moving get towards a Norwegian solution ... Namely we cannot get sufficient safeguards to protect our interests from the ever closer union of the eurozone.
Only 8% of Britain's aid budget goes on humanitarian relief. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9542002/theres-only-one-sane-way-david-cameron-can-meet-the-foreign-aid-target/ …
Yep!. Should have voted UKIP.
I make 2015 UKIP + Con = 50.5Sorry that inc. NI UnionistsEFTA membership would give the UK far more influence over its trade arrangements whilst removing us from any of the political issues that have soured the relationship with the EU.
He's talking in French.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
Anyway, the whole speculation is pointless until we see the final situation.
Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-3577080,L&city4=-3584722,S
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Hannan? Clever. Common touch ? Nope.
Farage? A gift to to IN campaign.
Dyson has been suggested.. As all his production is overseas... a hostage to fortune.
As usual,OAPs will dominate the voting..
OAPs don't do leaps in the dark.
The best approach for the "OUT" campaign is to remind voters that the choice is not about keeping the status quo, but about choosing a fork in the road. The EU will not stand still. There will be more integration "towards ever closer union". By voting "IN", you accept that. (Long term making this crystal clear will be helpful in settling the matter, IMHO)
Interestingly, I wonder what the "red lines" are for supporters. What would make an OUTER vote to stay IN, and what would make an INNER vote out.
My own red line would be if the EU insisted that the UK would have to privatise the NHS.
If you already know which way you'll vote then you should worry about yourself a little.
UEFA + USA + Canada + Australia + South America would equal a landslide if this was a shareholder meeting.
http://tinyurl.com/qcbznt7
We must hope dearly that the ejection of Farages minimees will remove the crass nativism from the EU agenda. As it is, 'to do a Farage' has already entered the lexicon and I am not sure that for some kippers kipperism has it become a purpose all of itself.
Given the way he defies the supposed big boys, I'm sure these nations think Blatter is great.
http://eureferendum.com/
Apparently the Electoral Commission has recommended that there should be a minimum 9 month gap between the final passing of the EU referendum Act and the actual vote. This would imply that there is no way the vote could be held to coincide with the Scottish and Welsh votes next May. For that to happen the Referendum act would have to have passed all its stages and received Royal Assent by early August of this year.
On the same subject, it should be noted that there is a very significant provision in the Bill, which is clause 4(2). It provides that:In English, the Bill envisages that the government will have the power to hold the referendum on the same day as another election or referendum, but not to modify the date on which the latter is set to occur.
They're all going down in a big way.
When you say 'these nations' you clearly don't mean anyone actually resident in any of them. People and nations that think Blatter is great is almost the definition of an empty set.
But that hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will.
Then how come he's probably going to win?
Decisions are made by those who vote, not those who do not turn up.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
Labour themselves could make it easier for them if they shoot themselves in the foot by spending the next 2 years lining up alongside the CBI to make the usual corporatist/scaremongering arguments.
Europe, on the other hand, is definitely political...and when he was on the politics, he could get very toxic very quickly.
My recollection of 1975 is that having non-politicians in the lead doesn't work. They tend to be obscure to most people (I'd never heard of Lord Bamford, for instance), and they often aren't especially skilled in handling the hurly-burly of debate.
I don't really think "Out" has much chance in 2016 (which is why Cameron wants it then), but probably their best shot is a simple, populist "Bash the Establishment, let's get out, sort out the details afterwards" line, which probably does mean Farage.