> I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
>
>
>
> What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
>
>
>
> She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> I think she was talking about you.
>
> You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I.
The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
I didn’t vote Tory in 2017.
The current mess is down largely to the vote leave campaign.
They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears.
We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG.
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @DavidL said: > > Those benefits of Brexit: > > > > Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). > > Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ > > Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration. > > Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. > > Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. > > Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med. > > > > They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of? > > > > These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise. > > Amazing how these airy fairy benefits and principles fall to dust north of Berwick.
I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
I agree with her general point. However politicians are on the hook for something that is essentially undeliverable. You don't think we would have Brexited by now if what had been promised was moderately achievable?
And not being a politician and simply a member of the public, I am not bound by that promise.
Finally, the implication of Davidson's remarks is that Brexit has nothing going for it except that people voted for it on false assumptions. Do you think that's a recipe for success?
> @williamglenn said: > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. > > > > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> @edb said: > This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt. > It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed. > Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
> @FF43 said: > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > I agree with her general point. However politicians are on the hook for something that is essentially undeliverable. You don't think we would have Brexited by now if what had been promised was moderately achievable? > > And not being a politician and simply a member of the public, I am not bound by that promise. > > Finally, the implication of Davidson's remarks is that Brexit has nothing going for it except that people voted for it on false assumptions. So you think that's a recipe for success?
It is not undeliverable. May's deal delivers it. The problem is that our political class think they know better.
I have given a list this morning of the benefits. I have little doubt that a departure on May's terms with a continuing close working relationship is indeed a recipe for success.
Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the UK (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). Not being bound by the BoE or policies that favour the £. Not having to pay billions a year towards the monumental fuckup of Brexit. Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. Having elections where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on this country rather than the UK.
Edit: also avoid going down the xenophobic, nativist rabbit hole towards which England seems to be lumbering.
Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
> @Cyclefree said: > > @kjh said: > > So just to summerise Guildford: > > > > Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset. > > > > The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction. > > A planning barrister of my acquaintance says that the level of corruption involved in planning is far more widespread than most people realise.
Many, many years ago I was a (naive) town councillor. One of the first decisions I had to make was which sub committees to be on. It took me a while to understand why the planning sub-committee was always over subscribed (indeed some councillors only ever attended the planning sub-committee and sent apologies to everything else).
It is not undeliverable. May's deal delivers it. The problem is that our political class think they know better.
I have given a list this morning of the benefits. I have little doubt that a departure on May's terms with a continuing close working relationship is indeed a recipe for success.
How much do you think annual payments from the UK to Brussels will end up as under the fully-negotiated version of May's future relationship? How much say do you think the UK will have in the 'common rule book'?
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @DavidL said: > > I don't think that they do. > > Glad you're coming round to the idea. > > Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the UK (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament). > Not being bound by the BoE or policies that favour the £. > Not having to pay billions a year towards the fuckup of Brexit. > Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world. > Having elections where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words. > Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on this country rather than the UK.
The rather important difference, Mr Divvie, is that when given this choice and having the opportunity to weigh up the merits and demerits the Scottish people voted to remain.
We are also, unfortunately, somewhat heavily subsidised by UK plc at present. I wish that were not so. But if Scotland is ever to be an independent nation it needs to balance what it thinks it should spend on meeting its social needs against the tax base that sustains it. We are a long way from that right now.
On fish and agriculture I think we will see more devolution and powers vested in the Scottish government than they had in the EU.
> @Roger said: > > @malcolmg said: > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics. > > > > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade. > > > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > > > > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU. > > > > > > > > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever. > > > > The ship has sailed. > > > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics. > > > > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade. > > > > Mr. Glenn, ha. > > > > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it. > > > > > > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU. > > > > > > > > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever. > > > > The ship has sailed. > > > > You what? We would retain every power and right conferred on each and every member by the EU constitution, and would continue to enjoy the further soft power we gain from our relative economic and military pre eminence. What ship has sailed, and where to? Good metaphors should clarify rather than obfuscate. > > > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock. > > It would be a good thing if we lost all our powers to the EU. They couldn't possibly wield them as incompetently as we do.
They could do worse. They did, after all, create the Euro.
> @williamglenn said: > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
> @partypoliticalorphan said: > >So just to summerise Guildford: > > >Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset. > > >The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction. > > In West Lancashire, Labour took a drubbing from Local Independents over the local plan proposals losing 4 seats, but there were less than 2000 representations here. I'm not doubting the Guildford figure was many times higher than that, but 80,000 is an almost impossible number to be believable. Were Russian bots active?
I know it is mind boggling isn't it, but I'm sure they are all valid and presumably verified as these are written submissions and you have to provide contact details. When I supplied my submission I was contacted by return.
Although the Russian bot reference is rather apt as the neighbouring Conservative MP used Parliamentary Privilege to accuse the leader of the council of being under Russian influence all associated with the Cayman Island development company whose ownership is secret, but who want to build a new town.
> @Barnesian said: > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
On top of being tortured by the Greek security services, at the behest of the British government.
Shows how inept May's government is - they cant even lock up free speech advocating dissenters without letting them post selfies & talk about it on twitter
I have given a list this morning of the benefits. I have little doubt that a departure on May's terms with a continuing close working relationship is indeed a recipe for success.
That's a point of view. Personally I think those "benefits" are thin gruel for walking away from the meetings where the decisions that affect us are made. They no way address the issues that Cyclefree raises in her piece.
Whatever. The point remains. If you fall back on the "They voted for it. Do it." argument you have given up on anything good coming out of it. That might not apply to you, but it does to Davidson.
> @DavidL said: > The rather important difference, Mr Divvie, is that when given this choice and having the opportunity to weigh up the merits and demerits the Scottish people voted to remain. > > We are also, unfortunately, somewhat heavily subsidised by UK plc at present. I wish that were not so. But if Scotland is ever to be an independent nation it needs to balance what it thinks it should spend on meeting its social needs against the tax base that sustains it. We are a long way from that right now. > > On fish and agriculture I think we will see more devolution and powers vested in the Scottish government than they had in the EU.
Indy ref: the wise Scottish people weighed up the merits and demerits and voted to remain. Any mention of Project Fear, bullying, threats and false promises about protecting EU membership is naught but Nat propaganda.
Brexit: In spite of the real Project Fear, bullying and threats, the brave British people (whose collective view trumps those of the English, Scottish, Welsh and NI peoples) voted to leave.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > > > > > > > > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > > > > > I think she was talking about you. > > > > > > You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks. > > > > Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I. > > > > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. > > > > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > I didn’t vote Tory in 2017. > > The current mess is down largely to the > vote leave campaign. > > They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears. > > We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG.
"The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> @williamglenn said: > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
> @another_richard said: > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > > > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > >
> > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > >
> > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > >
> > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > > > > > > > > > I think she was talking about you. > > > > > > > > > > You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks. > > > > > > > > Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I. > > > > > > > > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. > > > > > > > > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > > > I didn’t vote Tory in 2017. > > > > The current mess is down largely to the > > vote leave campaign. > > > > They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears. > > > > We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG. > > I thought you vote swapped with Pulpstar ?
Vote swapped? In a referendum?? I've actually never vote swapped with anyone.
> @DavidL said: > > @thecommissioner said: > > Eurozone Composite PMI: > > > > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower." > > > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff > > > > > > > > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
> UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
A large proportion of Brits, realising that the UK is no longer powerful, are deluded in thinking that through seperatism they can make Great Britain powerful again. That is what is turning the UK into a laughing stock.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > Salah and Firmino ruled out of tomorrow’s second leg against Barca. > > If those two had played we’d have qualified for the final, nailed on. > > Ah well.
The amazing Messi free kick last week would not have gone in if it had not brushed that Liverpool shoulder. The 3 inch deviation was just enough to see it elude the keeper. Without the rather fluky deflection we would have been talking 'great save!' and a wholly different narrative would have prevailed.
Moral - nothing is so brilliant that it does not benefit from a slice of luck.
Relevance to today's political landscape? Corbyn, obviously. Yes he's a great campaigner, yes he's a man of principle in an age of few, and yes he cares about the lot of the poor when most politicians do not, but without the debacle that is Brexit, and the damage it is wreaking on the Tory Party, would he have the remotest chance of ever seeing the inside of number 10? Probably not.
> @Floater said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @thecommissioner said: > > > Eurozone Composite PMI: > > > > > > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower." > > > > > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff > > > > > > > > > > > > > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them. > > For more countries than just them i'm afraid. > > Yet still people think we should join
The Italians will be sending a big eurosceptic contingent to Brussels in three weeks' time. Lega Nord, 5*M, Brothers of Italy are polling c.60% between them - 70% with Forza Italia.
> @DavidL said: > > @thecommissioner said: > > Eurozone Composite PMI: > > > > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower." > > > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff > > > > > > > > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
Since 2000, overall economic growth in the EZ has averaged 1.4% p.a., which is pretty lacklustre.
In Italy, it's averaged 0.5% p.a., and in Greece, it's averaged 0.75% p.a.
Eurozone Composite PMI: "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> @DavidL said: > > @thecommissioner said: > > Eurozone Composite PMI: > > > > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower." > > > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff > > > > > > > > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
The Euro hasn’t helped but Italy is an economic basket case rife with corruption . I’ve never agreed with the Euro even though I’m pro EU but there are lots of problems in Italy even if you could magically remove the Euro ,
> @algarkirk said: > > @williamglenn said: > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed? > > > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!). > > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off. > > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say? > > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit. >
The analogy is the wrong way round. It is the leaving party that changes its mind, and I think it pretty likely that had the 2014 referendum gone the other way that very similar difficulties would have occurred for Scotland, especially as negotiations over the currency continued.
The elephant in the room with Brexit is that it now seems pretty likely that the UK as a whole has changed its mind.
> @malcolmg said: > > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock.
I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
> @viewcode said: > Eurozone Composite PMI: > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower." > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107 > > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them. > > Growth of 0.2% per quarter is not "contraction mode". It's not great growth, but it's still growth
The 0.2% is the overall Eurozone figure. Italy is below that.
> @kle4 said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock. > > Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock. > > I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
Agreed fully. Banana republics do not have the worlds elite looking to send their children to their universities, do not play a leading role in world culture or on how to protect the environment. We do lots of things very well and should celebrate those things more (of course whilst trying to sort out the crap we do badly on).
> > A quick review of the individual results is a give away that there is more going on here than the national issues.
> >
> > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> >
> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> >
> > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> >
> > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> >
> > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> >
> > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> >
> > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> >
> > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
> >
> > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> >
> > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents
> >
> > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
> >
> > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
> >
> > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
I met Jukes about a month ago..his arrogance and sense of entitlement was astonishing. Good riddance I say.
> @algarkirk said: > > @williamglenn said: > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed? > > > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!). > > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off. > > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say? > > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit. >
To make it comparable Nicola would have had to have said;
" AMAZING ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER. ALL SCOTS GET A NEW HOUSE ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! YES ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! PLUS NO COUNCIL TAX FOR A YEAR AND NO MORE PETROL TAX!!! HURRY.....OFFER ONLY AVAILABLE FOR TWO WEEKS!!!
It's amazing what advertising can achieve when there are no rules.
> > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
*
All great points.
But here's the thing (for me):
Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
I'm button-punching between work and the 1979 coverage. The graphic design is good but not great. I don't like the white text on grey background. And I cannot for the life of me understand why Northern Ireland is not depicted on the map. Oh wait, I do know the answer to that...
> @eristdoof said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock. > > A large proportion of Brits, realising that the UK is no longer powerful, are deluded in thinking that through seperatism they can make Great Britain powerful again. That is what is turning the UK into a laughing stock.
But a lot less damaging than our political establishment who think Middle Eastern warmongering, giving away money in foreign aid and imposing carbon taxes are going to make Britain powerful again.
> @Cicero said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > > > > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed? > > > > > > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!). > > > > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off. > > > > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say? > > > > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit. > > > > The analogy is the wrong way round. It is the leaving party that changes its mind, and I think it pretty likely that had the 2014 referendum gone the other way that very similar difficulties would have occurred for Scotland, especially as negotiations over the currency continued. > > The elephant in the room with Brexit is that it now seems pretty likely that the UK as a whole has changed its mind.
> @Dura_Ace said: > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > My mother will be delighted. She's just won the WI photography competition despite cataracts and now this. > > In other news we've passed peak Right Wing Ruth. She is no longer a significant figure in British politics.
See there's 2 candidates already. It would be an entirely democratic rule change.
Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chuck of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
* We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. * Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
> @Roger said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > > > > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed? > > > > > > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!). > > > > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off. > > > > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say? > > > > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit. > > > > To make it comparable Nicola would have had to have said; > > " AMAZING ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER. ALL SCOTS GET A NEW HOUSE ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! YES ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! PLUS NO COUNCIL TAX FOR A YEAR AND NO MORE PETROL TAX!!! HURRY.....OFFER ONLY AVAILABLE FOR TWO WEEKS!!! > > It's amazing what advertising can achieve when there are no rules.
Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends. > > * > > All great points. > > But here's the thing (for me): > > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers.
They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration.
Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
> @Dura_Ace said: > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > My mother will be delighted. She's just won the WI photography competition despite cataracts and now this. > > In other news we've passed peak Right Wing Ruth. She is no longer a significant figure in British politics.
On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
> @viewcode said: > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chuck of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit. > > * We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. > * Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
Housing still has an effect.
And a lot of self identification is affected by housing.
> @DavidL said: > Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
I guess part of the difference is that Scottish voters know way more about the British government than British voters know about the EU, so they weren't susceptible to the kind of epic story that the Leave campaign got away with, whereby the EU was always taking advantage of the UK, but come the exit negotiations they'd be unbelievably generous.
> @kle4 said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock. > > Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock. > > I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
It's not just old Tories who complain about the country going to the dogs, and things being much better in the past. Their opponents do it, too.
> The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
>
>
> Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
Symmetry is pleasing and it is appealing to think that the unicorn fanciers of the ERG are balanced by equally reprehensible 'undemocratic arrogance' from hardcore remainers.
Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work.
But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result.
* We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. * Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
Housing still has an effect. And a lot of self identification is affected by housing.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends. > > * > > All great points. > > But here's the thing (for me): > > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
--------------- Indigenous working class voters, especially older ones, are generally social conservatives, they used to identify with Labour figures such as Jim Callaghan or even JohnPrescott - Corbyn's politically correct pacifism is anathema to many of them.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends. > > * > > All great points. > > But here's the thing (for me): > > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or
We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
Right. But anger at being ignored implies that there is something important they want (and badly) which is not forthcoming.
What is it? This is what I am fretting about.
For example, contrast the following offers:
(1)
- The rich and corporates to pay more tax. - Higher spending on public services. - Utilities to be publicly owned. - Private schools to lose tax breaks. - State Bank to direct investment to the Regions.
(2)
- Leave the European Union without a Deal.
Why, in the name of all that is right and proper in this world, would the struggling and left behind indigenous working class in post industrial England be more attracted to (2) than (1)? To Farage rather than Labour?
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland. > > > > > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer. > > > > > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter. > > > > > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn. > > > > Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland. > > > > In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that > > Yesterday you were suggesting in a GE Brexit poll 30% and Tories 13%. Presumably the tory vote at 13% is not very hard Brexity at all? > >
For the European elections no as so many Tory Leavers are voting Brexit Party but obviously the Tories can never win a general election again on just 13%
On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
> @another_richard said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends. > > > > * > > > > All great points. > > > > But here's the thing (for me): > > > > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit. > > You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers. > > They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration. > > Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
When I worked in Taiwan just 20 years ago, I had to rely on a weekly delivery of the International Daily Telegraph to find out what was happening in British politics. Globalisation has happened. You can choose to deny it or embrace it.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @Barnesian said: > > > > > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist. > > > > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends. > > * > > All great points. > > But here's the thing (for me): > > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way? > > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners? > > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
The reasons will be different for different people, patriotism and being anti immigration will be two prominent reasons, another would be a lot of them wont think Corbyn's policies will help them or that he would deliver what he promised.
It depends where on the JAM scale you are, if you are mostly reliant on benefits then Corbyn is good for you, if you are just above that, and want to improve your life beyond it then Corbyn is probably bad - a lot of his spending would be primarily benefiting middle class and the precariat not so much the working class. Another reason is people felt like they had won as underdogs in the referendum and have been cheated out of their win against the establishment. That is a very powerful emotion so the simple solution from Farage becomes much popular than the complex answer/fudge offered by Corbyn.
> @FF43 said: > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
She doesn't need to as she plays the pro union card in Scotland and attacks Sturgeon over Independence and failed domestic issues
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @DavidL said: > > Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true. > > I guess part of the difference is that Scottish voters know way more about the British government than British voters know about the EU, so they weren't susceptible to the kind of epic story that the Leave campaign got away with, whereby the EU was always taking advantage of the UK, but come the exit negotiations they'd be unbelievably generous.
Maybe the Leavers from the EU just had a better case than the Indys.
Personally, I feel a great loyalty to the UK. The EU, not so much. I never felt that was what I belonged to. On a transactional basis I was persuadable that the positives outweighed the negatives but I never, ever identified with it. I don't think I was alone in this.
> @Recidivist said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. >
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > > > > > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia? > > > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table. > > Symmetry is pleasing and it is appealing to think that the unicorn fanciers of the ERG are balanced by equally reprehensible 'undemocratic arrogance' from hardcore remainers. > > Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work. > > But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result. > > The hardline leavers threw it away.
I think you are being a little harsh on Mrs Miller and the MPs who got the case referred to the CJEU from Scotland. Remainers have fought to create more and more hurdles from day 1. Hence the MV provision that has caused so many problems.
> @kinabalu said: > We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes. > > > Right. But anger at being ignored implies that there is something important they want (and badly) which is not forthcoming. > > What is it? This is what I am fretting about. > > For example, contrast the following offers: > > (1) > > - The rich and corporates to pay more tax. > - Higher spending on public services. > - Utilities to be publicly owned. > - Private schools to lose tax breaks. > - State Bank to direct investment to the Regions. > > (2) > > - Leave the European Union without a Deal. > > Why, in the name of all that is right and proper in this world, would the struggling and left behind indigenous working class in post industrial England be more attracted to (2) than (1)? To Farage rather than Labour? > > Really am exercised by this.
___________
How many of those at the bottom actually vote in the old industrial areas ?
I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
> > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> >
>
> > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
>
>
>
> Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
>
> Symmetry is pleasing and it is appealing to think that the unicorn fanciers of the ERG are balanced by equally reprehensible 'undemocratic arrogance' from hardcore remainers.
>
> Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work.
>
> But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result.
>
> The hardline leavers threw it away.
I think you are being a little harsh on Mrs Miller and the MPs who got the case referred to the CJEU from Scotland. Remainers have fought to create more and more hurdles from day 1. Hence the MV provision that has caused so many problems.
Yes, without the MV brexit would have happened by now. I suppose that was the plan all along.
On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Her message that the union doesn't hold Scotland back, while simultaneously arguing that Scotland has to go through with a Brexit she doesn't think it good for Scotland because the rest of the UK voted for it has problems with intellectual coherence.
> The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
>
>
> Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
I'm looking forward to Ruth purging the loons from her own sub branch.
Fat chance she is too busy planning her exit to Westminster and fact that she is among the biggest of the loons even more unlikely. It amazes me how many stupid people there are that vote for these absolute wasters despite them dumping on them constantly.
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> >
>
> > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
>
>
>
> Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
>
> Symmetry is pleasing and it is appealing to think that the unicorn fanciers of the ERG are balanced by equally reprehensible 'undemocratic arrogance' from hardcore remainers.
>
> Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work.
>
> But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result.
>
> The hardline leavers threw it away.
I think you are being a little harsh on Mrs Miller and the MPs who got the case referred to the CJEU from Scotland. Remainers have fought to create more and more hurdles from day 1. Hence the MV provision that has caused so many problems.
As I argued on here at the time, Mrs Miller's initiative was more likely to be harmful to remain than leave. It simply gave leaving the EU a hurdle of getting through the House of Commons, which at the time was a hurdle that was easily jumped. In fact if it weren't for the ruling in her case Article 50 would have been repealable by the fiat of the prime minister. As it is, the situation is that it will now need a majority in the Commons.
But yes you are right - there were a few remainers who did a bit more than moaning. Insofar as they had any effect at all it was to weaken the remain case.
> @malcolmg said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment. > > > > > > > > > > > > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on. > > > > > > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia? > > > > I'm looking forward to Ruth purging the loons from her own sub branch. > > Fat chance she is too busy planning her exit to Westminster and fact that she is among the biggest of the loons even more unlikely. It amazes me how many stupid people there are that vote for these absolute wasters despite them dumping on them constantly.
You can keep her, Malc. A Scottish party leader in Westminster would be about as welcome as me being FM up in North Britain!
As I argued on here at the time, Mrs Miller's initiative was more likely to be harmful to remain than leave. It simply gave leaving the EU a hurdle of getting through the House of Commons, which at the time was a hurdle that was easily jumped. In fact if it weren't for the ruling in her case Article 50 would have been repealable by the fiat of the prime minister. As it is, the situation is that it will now need a majority in the Commons.
The Miller case is silent on the requirements for repealing Article 50. The judgment that it required an Act of Parliament to invoke it was based on the argument that it inevitably led to a loss of statutory rights, but that doesn't apply to revocation.
> Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the UK (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
> Not being bound by the BoE or policies that favour the £.
> Not having to pay billions a year towards the fuckup of Brexit.
> Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
> Having elections where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
> Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on this country rather than the UK.
The rather important difference, Mr Divvie, is that when given this choice and having the opportunity to weigh up the merits and demerits the Scottish people voted to remain.
We are also, unfortunately, somewhat heavily subsidised by UK plc at present. I wish that were not so. But if Scotland is ever to be an independent nation it needs to balance what it thinks it should spend on meeting its social needs against the tax base that sustains it. We are a long way from that right now.
On fish and agriculture I think we will see more devolution and powers vested in the Scottish government than they had in the EU.
That is just bollox David. We do not have any finances given they are all run and budgeted by the UK. How do you know what position Scotland would be in if it was rid of the dead weight of the union. Best you could do is look at other similar sized countries who are independent , have much less resources than Scotland and what do we see, they are all significantly richer than Scotland. Rid of the dead hand of Westminster we could budget properly , borrow within our means and not having to pay for Westminster debts , south east infrastructure etc we could not do worse. Typical unionist pathetic position , how can only Scotland in the world be unable to manage on its own. Backbone required and Tory party removed to the coup where they should be.
Indigenous working class voters, especially older ones, are generally social conservatives, they used to identify with Labour figures such as Jim Callaghan or even JohnPrescott - Corbyn's politically correct pacifism is anathema to many of them.
Yes, this is a big part of it IMO. It must be.
It's what Cameron was playing to with his jibe at Corbyn - that Cam's dear old mother would have told Jeremy to "stand up straight, man, put a suit and tie on, and sing the national anthem."
That is the true spirit of Brexit. All of this 'democratic deficit' and 'left behind' business is just an attempt to lend it gravitas.
> @Andrew said: > > @viewcode said: > > > Growth of 0.2% per quarter is not "contraction mode". It's not great growth, but it's still growth > > Quite a range though. Eastern Europe is 0.8ish, Germany/france/Italy/UK all zeroish. Spain 0.7% a bit of an outlier for a larger economy.
Not according to the BoE: "Based on ONS data to February, quarterly GDP growth is expected to have picked up to 0.5% in 2019 Q1, from 0.2% in 2018 Q4, stronger than projected in the February Report."
> @FF43 said: > On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next. > > Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
> > Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
>
> I guess part of the difference is that Scottish voters know way more about the British government than British voters know about the EU, so they weren't susceptible to the kind of epic story that the Leave campaign got away with, whereby the EU was always taking advantage of the UK, but come the exit negotiations they'd be unbelievably generous.
Maybe the Leavers from the EU just had a better case than the Indys.
Personally, I feel a great loyalty to the UK. The EU, not so much. I never felt that was what I belonged to. On a transactional basis I was persuadable that the positives outweighed the negatives but I never, ever identified with it. I don't think I was alone in this.
Unfortunately the morons found out that the SNP were right and it was the Tories that were the liars. If only a few more had had a backbone and not been taken in by the liars.
Watching the BBC 1979 Election programme has certainly taken me down Memory Lane. I was a - very young - parliamentary candidate at that election , and I must say it does not feel anything like as long as being 40 years ago. What really hits me very hard is having to accept the reality of that election being closer in time to the outbreak of World War 2 than it is to the present day! Tempus fugit.
> @kinabalu said: > Indigenous working class voters, especially older ones, are generally social conservatives, they used to identify with Labour figures such as Jim Callaghan or even JohnPrescott - Corbyn's politically correct pacifism is anathema to many of them. > > Yes, this is a big part of it IMO. It must be. > > It's what Cameron was playing to with his jibe at Corbyn - that Cam's dear old mother would have told Jeremy to "stand up straight, man, put a suit and tie on, and sing the national anthem." > > That is the true spirit of Brexit. All of this 'democratic deficit' and 'left behind' business is just an attempt to lend it gravitas.
Let me suggest for Leavers 'community' has a traditional real world meaning while for Remainers it is something which exists through the internet.
On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Away you half witted cretin, we are sick to the back teeth of the stupid halfwit wittering on , not back two days and she has been on the BBC constantly, you would think she still worked for them. Fact that her gurning mush would frighten the dogs does not help.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
She doesn't need to as she plays the pro union card in Scotland and attacks Sturgeon over Independence and failed domestic issues
In truth, if the Union is Davidson's priority, she should ditch Brexit and say it was the mistake she almost certainly believes it to be. She can't stop her miserable colleagues in England from proceeding with the project but she can try to insulate herself and unionism from the poison.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
She doesn't need to as she plays the pro union card in Scotland and attacks Sturgeon over Independence and failed domestic issues
In truth, if the Union is Davidson's priority, she should ditch Brexit and say it was the mistake she almost certainly believes it to be. She can't stop her miserable colleagues in England from proceeding with the project but she can try to insulate herself and unionism from the poison.
She has to obey Westminster orders, unable to think on her own and cannot afford to jeapordise her move south.
A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or.
Whether Labour economic policies would work is another matter. It's not valid to project your Conservative mindset onto these people.
And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens.
In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes?
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
I wonder if any teacher has been fired for staying stuff about Tories?
You stupid turnip, that was not what she was fired for moron. She was staking people on social media for years, nothing to do with SNP or Sturgeon. At least read the story before you talk bollox.
> @viewcode said: > ...Let me suggest for Leavers 'community' has a traditional real world meaning while for Remainers it is something which exists through the internet. > > Which does rather beg the question as to what we are doing banging on on the Internet on this Bank Holiday...
The weather is crap and we're trying to avoid doing something constructive ?
Comments
The current mess is down largely to the
vote leave campaign.
They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears.
We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG.
> > @DavidL said:
> > Those benefits of Brexit:
> >
> > Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the EU (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
> > Not being bound by QMV or policies that favour the EZ
> > Not having to pay approximately £10bn a year towards EU integration.
> > Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
> > Having elections (EU Parliament apart, naturally) where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
> > Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on these isles rather than the Med.
> >
> > They really haven't gone away. We just focus on the complexities. Should we join a CU? Is it sensible to give the EU the power that gives them over our trade policy? Are the rewards of frictionless trade worth it? Where do we still want to integrate beyond a FTA? What, even if we are not members of the EU, does the countries of Europe do better together? How do we have a virtual border with a SM that we are not a part of?
> >
> > These are not straightforward questions and a distinctly below average political class is making a right meal of them. It's disappointing but I really don't agree with @Cyclefree's premise.
>
> Amazing how these airy fairy benefits and principles fall to dust north of Berwick.
I don't think that they do.
And not being a politician and simply a member of the public, I am not bound by that promise.
Finally, the implication of Davidson's remarks is that Brexit has nothing going for it except that people voted for it on false assumptions. Do you think that's a recipe for success?
> The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
>
>
> Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> This local plan thing (in general) seems to be a disaster for absolutely everyone. Central govt imposing unrealistic targets and then local councils cant achieve them but become very unpopular trying. Meanwhile it doesnt look good for those who want cheap housing, or for those who want to preserve the greenbelt.
> It seems obvious to me that if we really want to build loads of houses for commuters they need to be in new towns and/or motorway+good rail corridors. Even better would be to build enough houses in london regeneration projects so that commuting is not needed.
> Obviously there will then be nimby opposition in those areas, but it wont be in EVERY area at once which it seems to be now.
One issue that seems apparent (and mentioned earlier by someone) is the complete lack of infrastructure planning surrounding some of these plans. It seems so incompetent that one wonders whether it is deliberate. That is you need houses so build them, then you find you have a roads/parking/school/sewage/pollution/flooding/surgery/etc crisis. So it is essential you must now overcome that. Whereas if you had tried to get it all through in the first place you would never have done so. Now build more houses because you have renewed infrastructure. In other words keep creating a problem by overcoming another problem.
Deliberate or incompetent?
> I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
>
>
>
> What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
>
>
>
> She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> I agree with her general point. However politicians are on the hook for something that is essentially undeliverable. You don't think we would have Brexited by now if what had been promised was moderately achievable?
>
> And not being a politician and simply a member of the public, I am not bound by that promise.
>
> Finally, the implication of Davidson's remarks is that Brexit has nothing going for it except that people voted for it on false assumptions. So you think that's a recipe for success?
It is not undeliverable. May's deal delivers it. The problem is that our political class think they know better.
I have given a list this morning of the benefits. I have little doubt that a departure on May's terms with a continuing close working relationship is indeed a recipe for success.
> I don't think that they do.
Glad you're coming round to the idea.
Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the UK (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
Not being bound by the BoE or policies that favour the £.
Not having to pay billions a year towards the monumental fuckup of Brexit.
Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
Having elections where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on this country rather than the UK.
Edit: also avoid going down the xenophobic, nativist rabbit hole towards which England seems to be lumbering.
> > @kjh said:
> > So just to summerise Guildford:
> >
> > Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
> >
> > The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
>
> A planning barrister of my acquaintance says that the level of corruption involved in planning is far more widespread than most people realise.
Many, many years ago I was a (naive) town councillor. One of the first decisions I had to make was which sub committees to be on. It took me a while to understand why the planning sub-committee was always over subscribed (indeed some councillors only ever attended the planning sub-committee and sent apologies to everything else).
> > @DavidL said:
> > I don't think that they do.
>
> Glad you're coming round to the idea.
>
> Not being a part of the increasingly integrated political structures of the UK (and that includes their imbecilic Parliament).
> Not being bound by the BoE or policies that favour the £.
> Not having to pay billions a year towards the fuckup of Brexit.
> Having the freedom to make our own choices, albeit accepting that every choice has a price and nothing is free in this world.
> Having elections where those elected are able to implement the choices that we have made, be they smart or no. Democracy, in other words.
> Having the ability to set plans for agriculture and fish that are actually focused on this country rather than the UK.
The rather important difference, Mr Divvie, is that when given this choice and having the opportunity to weigh up the merits and demerits the Scottish people voted to remain.
We are also, unfortunately, somewhat heavily subsidised by UK plc at present. I wish that were not so. But if Scotland is ever to be an independent nation it needs to balance what it thinks it should spend on meeting its social needs against the tax base that sustains it. We are a long way from that right now.
On fish and agriculture I think we will see more devolution and powers vested in the Scottish government than they had in the EU.
> > @malcolmg said:
> > Mr. Glenn, ha.
> >
> > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
> >
> > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics.
> >
> > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade.
> >
> > Mr. Glenn, ha.
> >
> > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
> >
> >
> > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU.
> >
> >
> >
> > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever.
> >
> > The ship has sailed.
> >
> > Mr. Glenn, ha.
> >
> > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
> >
> > It's one reason I'm so concerned about the censorious nature of modern politics.
> >
> > Reclaiming allegedly lost power to be net less powerful hardly seems like a good or sensible trade.
> >
> > Mr. Glenn, ha.
> >
> > The lesson is that giving away power is a lot easier than reclaiming it.
> >
> >
> > As we’ll discover after we have left the EU.
> >
> >
> >
> > It should be pretty clear by now that should we remain in the EU we will have no power whatsoever.
> >
> > The ship has sailed.
> >
> > You what? We would retain every power and right conferred on each and every member by the EU constitution, and would continue to enjoy the further soft power we gain from our relative economic and military pre eminence. What ship has sailed, and where to? Good metaphors should clarify rather than obfuscate.
> >
> > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
>
> It would be a good thing if we lost all our powers to the EU. They couldn't possibly wield them as incompetently as we do.
They could do worse. They did, after all, create the Euro.
> Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
>
> Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
No.
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/frankenstein-1931-004-boris-karloff-lazy-eyes-00m-yvt.jpg?itok=jkvQuVBj
I don't believe in reincarnation myself but sometimes you have to wonder.
https://twitter.com/clearmapping/status/1125352049745584128
> >So just to summerise Guildford:
>
> >Yes Nimbys complain about house building, but Guildford was different. There was much more going on. The list I gave was only a small subset.
>
> >The greenbelt/housing issue is happening all over the place, but I would be interested to know if any other borough got 80,000 objections or anywhere near it. It is difficult to imagine how such a number was achievable. It takes incredible incompetence (or possibly worse) to achieve that reaction.
>
> In West Lancashire, Labour took a drubbing from Local Independents over the local plan proposals losing 4 seats, but there were less than 2000 representations here. I'm not doubting the Guildford figure was many times higher than that, but 80,000 is an almost impossible number to be believable. Were Russian bots active?
I know it is mind boggling isn't it, but I'm sure they are all valid and presumably verified as these are written submissions and you have to provide contact details. When I supplied my submission I was contacted by return.
Although the Russian bot reference is rather apt as the neighbouring Conservative MP used Parliamentary Privilege to accuse the leader of the council of being under Russian influence all associated with the Cayman Island development company whose ownership is secret, but who want to build a new town.
>
> >
> > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
>
> Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
> Summat's up:
>
> https://twitter.com/clearmapping/status/1125352049745584128
On top of being tortured by the Greek security services, at the behest of the British government.
Whatever. The point remains. If you fall back on the "They voted for it. Do it." argument you have given up on anything good coming out of it. That might not apply to you, but it does to Davidson.
If those two had played we’d have qualified for the final, nailed on.
Ah well.
> Summat's up:
On a human level it's probably better not to rebroadcast somebody's personal mental health issue through every available channel...
> The rather important difference, Mr Divvie, is that when given this choice and having the opportunity to weigh up the merits and demerits the Scottish people voted to remain.
>
> We are also, unfortunately, somewhat heavily subsidised by UK plc at present. I wish that were not so. But if Scotland is ever to be an independent nation it needs to balance what it thinks it should spend on meeting its social needs against the tax base that sustains it. We are a long way from that right now.
>
> On fish and agriculture I think we will see more devolution and powers vested in the Scottish government than they had in the EU.
Indy ref: the wise Scottish people weighed up the merits and demerits and voted to remain. Any mention of Project Fear, bullying, threats and false promises about protecting EU membership is naught but Nat propaganda.
Brexit: In spite of the real Project Fear, bullying and threats, the brave British people (whose collective view trumps those of the English, Scottish, Welsh and NI peoples) voted to leave.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
>
> > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> >
>
> > I think she was talking about you.
>
> >
>
> > You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
>
>
>
> Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I.
>
>
>
> The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
>
>
> Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> I didn’t vote Tory in 2017.
>
> The current mess is down largely to the
> vote leave campaign.
>
> They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears.
>
> We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG.
I thought you vote swapped with Pulpstar ?
"The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
Yes I vote swapped with Pulpstar but two pollsters have told me for polling purposes I’m a 2017 Lib Dem.
> Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
>
> Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> >
> > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
> >
> >
> > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
> >
> >
> > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
> >
> >
> > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I think she was talking about you.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You were pretty quiet about and indeed voted for a campaign that Gove subsequently admitted went too far about whipping fears about Turks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you agree with everything in May's disastrous Manifesto? Did you vote Tory nonetheless? Did you do so because on balance that seemed the best thing for the country? So did I.
> >
> >
> >
> > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
> >
> >
> >
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
> >
> > I didn’t vote Tory in 2017.
> >
> > The current mess is down largely to the
> > vote leave campaign.
> >
> > They promised this would be easy, that we would hold all the cards whilst whipping up fears.
> >
> > We are reaping what they sowed, the victory emboldened the ERG.
>
> I thought you vote swapped with Pulpstar ?
Vote swapped? In a referendum?? I've actually never vote swapped with anyone.
> Eurozone Composite PMI:
>
> "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
>
> https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
>
>
>
Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > Eurozone Composite PMI:
> >
> > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> >
> > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
> >
> >
> >
>
> Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
For more countries than just them i'm afraid.
Yet still people think we should join
> UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
A large proportion of Brits, realising that the UK is no longer powerful, are deluded in thinking that through seperatism they can make Great Britain powerful again. That is what is turning the UK into a laughing stock.
> Salah and Firmino ruled out of tomorrow’s second leg against Barca.
>
> If those two had played we’d have qualified for the final, nailed on.
>
> Ah well.
The amazing Messi free kick last week would not have gone in if it had not brushed that Liverpool shoulder. The 3 inch deviation was just enough to see it elude the keeper. Without the rather fluky deflection we would have been talking 'great save!' and a wholly different narrative would have prevailed.
Moral - nothing is so brilliant that it does not benefit from a slice of luck.
Relevance to today's political landscape? Corbyn, obviously. Yes he's a great campaigner, yes he's a man of principle in an age of few, and yes he cares about the lot of the poor when most politicians do not, but without the debacle that is Brexit, and the damage it is wreaking on the Tory Party, would he have the remotest chance of ever seeing the inside of number 10? Probably not.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > Eurozone Composite PMI:
> > >
> > > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> > >
> > > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
>
> For more countries than just them i'm afraid.
>
> Yet still people think we should join
The Italians will be sending a big eurosceptic contingent to Brussels in three weeks' time. Lega Nord, 5*M, Brothers of Italy are polling c.60% between them - 70% with Forza Italia.
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > Eurozone Composite PMI:
> >
> > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> >
> > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
> >
> >
> >
>
> Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
Since 2000, overall economic growth in the EZ has averaged 1.4% p.a., which is pretty lacklustre.
In Italy, it's averaged 0.5% p.a., and in Greece, it's averaged 0.75% p.a.
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > Eurozone Composite PMI:
> >
> > "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
> >
> > https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107810a691ccff
> >
> >
> >
>
> Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
The Euro hasn’t helped but Italy is an economic basket case rife with corruption . I’ve never agreed with the Euro even though I’m pro EU but there are lots of problems in Italy even if you could magically remove the Euro ,
> > @williamglenn said:
> > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> >
> > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
>
>
> Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
>
> After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
>
> What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
>
> Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
>
The analogy is the wrong way round. It is the leaving party that changes its mind, and I think it pretty likely that had the 2014 referendum gone the other way that very similar difficulties would have occurred for Scotland, especially as negotiations over the currency continued.
The elephant in the room with Brexit is that it now seems pretty likely that the UK as a whole has changed its mind.
>
> > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock.
I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
> Eurozone Composite PMI:
> "The survey is indicative of the economy growing at a quarterly rate of approximately 0.2%, but manufacturing remained mired in its steepest downturn since 2013 and service sector growth slipped lower."
>
> https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/6544d4ac67644980af107
>
> Italy back in contraction mode. What a disaster the Euro has been for them.
>
> Growth of 0.2% per quarter is not "contraction mode". It's not great growth, but it's still growth
The 0.2% is the overall Eurozone figure. Italy is below that.
> > @malcolmg said:
> >
> > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
>
> Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock.
>
> I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
Agreed fully. Banana republics do not have the worlds elite looking to send their children to their universities, do not play a leading role in world culture or on how to protect the environment. We do lots of things very well and should celebrate those things more (of course whilst trying to sort out the crap we do badly on).
In other news we've passed peak Right Wing Ruth. She is no longer a significant figure in British politics.
> >
> > The LD then defected to the Independents and got re-elected this time with 91% of the vote, the Tories got just 9%. LDs stood aside.
> >
> > 70% to 9% is pretty impressive achievement.
> >
> > Turnout was a good indication as well this time. A seat unaffected by all of this had a 29% turnout, my ward was 55%!
> >
> > Where the LDs won from the Conservatives the margins were of the more normal type of swing. In the wards the Indies were fighting for the local reasons it was often a massacre.
> >
> > This rout should have happened in 2015, but the Independents couldn't get their act together then.
> >
> > Hopefully the scandal here will come to an end and the only loser will be Ian Hislop and Private Eye (although it is clear there will need to be some court action possibly to stop the local plan)
> >
> > A comment in the online local newspaper says it all:
> >
> > "There is only one reason why the Conservatives failed in Guildford: 80,000 ignored comments
> >
> > Along with a touch of elite arrogance."
> >
> > FYI the 80,000 refers to the objections to the local plan. To achieve 80,000 in one borough is going some, but the Tories put a huge effort into achieving it.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that these Tories do not represent the Tory party as a whole. It is local, just local. Two existing Tory councillors and one LD set up the Independents
> >
> > That is also what happened in Tandridge. Massive opposition to the local plan and 4000 new homes on green belt just outside of Godstone.
> >
> > Tunbridge Wells as well the same happened to the leader David Jukes who had insisted on pushing a local plan forwards that nobody wants.
> >
> > This is the problem for the Tories..if the population keeps rising we need new houses..those houses have to be built somewhere but the Tory heartlands will not accept this. Its actually more toxic than Brexit in those areas.
>
> The strategic incompetence of the Conservatives means they are now losing the votes of those who want higher house prices as well as those who want lower house prices.
In Tunbridge Wells the oppositiin was more Jukes' plan to build a huge new very expensive 'white elephant' theatre complex to rival the West End supposedly when the town already has 2 theatres anyway
I met Jukes about a month ago..his arrogance and sense of entitlement was astonishing. Good riddance I say.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> >
> > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
>
>
> Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
>
> After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
>
> What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
>
> Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
>
To make it comparable Nicola would have had to have said;
" AMAZING ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER. ALL SCOTS GET A NEW HOUSE ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! YES ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! PLUS NO COUNCIL TAX FOR A YEAR AND NO MORE PETROL TAX!!! HURRY.....OFFER ONLY AVAILABLE FOR TWO WEEKS!!!
It's amazing what advertising can achieve when there are no rules.
> > @Barnesian said:
> >
> > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> >
> > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
*
All great points.
But here's the thing (for me):
Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
> > @malcolmg said:
>
> > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
>
> A large proportion of Brits, realising that the UK is no longer powerful, are deluded in thinking that through seperatism they can make Great Britain powerful again. That is what is turning the UK into a laughing stock.
But a lot less damaging than our political establishment who think Middle Eastern warmongering, giving away money in foreign aid and imposing carbon taxes are going to make Britain powerful again.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> > >
> > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
> >
> >
> > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
> >
> > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
> >
> > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
> >
> > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
> >
>
> The analogy is the wrong way round. It is the leaving party that changes its mind, and I think it pretty likely that had the 2014 referendum gone the other way that very similar difficulties would have occurred for Scotland, especially as negotiations over the currency continued.
>
> The elephant in the room with Brexit is that it now seems pretty likely that the UK as a whole has changed its mind.
____________________________________________________
The governing party refuses to accept DD's statement 'A democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy' (or words to that effect).
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> My mother will be delighted. She's just won the WI photography competition despite cataracts and now this.
>
> In other news we've passed peak Right Wing Ruth. She is no longer a significant figure in British politics.
See there's 2 candidates already. It would be an entirely democratic rule change.
* Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
> > >
> > > Do you understand the concern of Remainers that there is no honest mandate for Brexit, let alone a deliverable version of Brexit, and that implementing a so-called compromise, far from addressing those concerns, would simply compound the travesty of democracy we have already witnessed?
> >
> >
> > Imagine if you will this scenario: Sturgeon gets her 2nd IndiRef and wins, 52/48. People vote to leave UK for the usual range of reasons - desire for self determination, wanting an independent Scotland in NATO/out of NATO, an independent Scotland in EU/out of EU, wanting never to have a Tory government, never to have a Labour government, wanting a socialist paradise with free whisky/wanting to be Norway with a massive sovereign wealth fund, a slight dislike of English hegemony and that sense of cultural superiority, preferring Edinburgh as a capital to London (wouldn't we all!).
> >
> > After a bit the UK government decide that because we have been closely integrated for so long and we don't want things like border crossings at Gretna and Berwick that actually there isn't a rational way of delivering this referendum outcome so they call it all off.
> >
> > What, I ask, would Nicola Sturgeon say?
> >
> > Whatever it is she would say is what millions of people are going to say about the subject of the 'undeliverability' of Brexit.
> >
>
> To make it comparable Nicola would have had to have said;
>
> " AMAZING ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER. ALL SCOTS GET A NEW HOUSE ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! YES ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! PLUS NO COUNCIL TAX FOR A YEAR AND NO MORE PETROL TAX!!! HURRY.....OFFER ONLY AVAILABLE FOR TWO WEEKS!!!
>
> It's amazing what advertising can achieve when there are no rules.
Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Barnesian said:
> > >
>
> > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> > >
> > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
>
> *
>
> All great points.
>
> But here's the thing (for me):
>
> Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
>
> Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
>
> I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers.
They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration.
Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
> Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
>
> My mother will be delighted. She's just won the WI photography competition despite cataracts and now this.
>
> In other news we've passed peak Right Wing Ruth. She is no longer a significant figure in British politics.
On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
> Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chuck of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
>
> Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
>
> I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
>
> * We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented.
> * Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
Housing still has an effect.
And a lot of self identification is affected by housing.
> Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
I guess part of the difference is that Scottish voters know way more about the British government than British voters know about the EU, so they weren't susceptible to the kind of epic story that the Leave campaign got away with, whereby the EU was always taking advantage of the UK, but come the exit negotiations they'd be unbelievably generous.
> > @malcolmg said:
> >
> > > UK is a jumped up banana republic, deluded thinking it is powerful instead of a laughing stock.
>
> Lazy, lazy thinking. This delusion that masses of people are deluded about the UK's position in the world is one of the most tiresome tropes that gets carted out over and over again. A few trumped up gammons doesn't mean most people, left or right, young or old, think we area superpower. Most people seem to be pretty realistic that we are a wealthy nation with, in global terms, a considerable amount of power, but that we are not a superpower, not as powerful as we used to be, but that doesn't make us a laughing stock.
>
> I think it is pretty sad that people cling so readily to the lazy assumptions in this manner. It's just a way of being dismissive and inventing a position to deride rather than face the actual position.
It's not just old Tories who complain about the country going to the dogs, and things being much better in the past. Their opponents do it, too.
Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work.
But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result.
The hardline leavers threw it away.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Barnesian said:
> > >
>
> > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> > >
> > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
>
> *
>
> All great points.
>
> But here's the thing (for me):
>
> Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
>
> Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
>
> I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
---------------
Indigenous working class voters, especially older ones, are generally social conservatives, they used to identify with Labour figures such as Jim Callaghan or even JohnPrescott - Corbyn's politically correct pacifism is anathema to many of them.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Barnesian said:
> > >
>
> > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> > >
> > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
>
> *
>
> All great points.
>
> But here's the thing (for me):
>
> Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
>
> Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
>
> I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
A Corbyn Government raising taxes and slowing growth, spending too much and increasing inflation is not going to benefit them.
However given the poorest DE voters voted both to Leave the EU in the 2016 referendum and for Corbyn Labour at the last general election it is more a case they want both Brexit and Corbyn not either or
What is it? This is what I am fretting about.
For example, contrast the following offers:
(1)
- The rich and corporates to pay more tax.
- Higher spending on public services.
- Utilities to be publicly owned.
- Private schools to lose tax breaks.
- State Bank to direct investment to the Regions.
(2)
- Leave the European Union without a Deal.
Why, in the name of all that is right and proper in this world, would the struggling and left behind indigenous working class in post industrial England be more attracted to (2) than (1)? To Farage rather than Labour?
Really am exercised by this.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > I was in the gym yesterday morning so I couldn't hear what she was saying but the subtitles of Ruth Davidson's interview on Marr were seriously impressive. The Tories have missed her, and not just in Scotland.
> > >
> > > What she said was that she had been a remainer but that she was also a democrat. If politicians decide that an issue is too big for them to resolve on their own and pass it to the people it is not then open to those same politicians to tell the people that they got the wrong answer.
> > >
> > > She went on to point out that over 450 MPs were elected in 2017 supposedly committed to implementing that decision of the people (including all of the members of the CUKs.) She rightly observed that those on both extremes of this debate were getting louder and louder whilst those in the middle were getting quieter.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think that the Constitution of the Tory party should be amended so that the next leader can be anyone at all who has a son called Finn.
> >
> > Ruth Davidson is an excellent Scottish Unionist leader to take on the Nationalists and her support for Deal plus Customs Union is acceptable I would imagine to most Tories or at least most Unionists in Remain voting Scotland.
> >
> > In Leave voting England and Wales though it may be a different matter, Tories there want a harder Brexit than that
>
> Yesterday you were suggesting in a GE Brexit poll 30% and Tories 13%. Presumably the tory vote at 13% is not very hard Brexity at all?
>
>
For the European elections no as so many Tory Leavers are voting Brexit Party but obviously the Tories can never win a general election again on just 13%
> > @kinabalu said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @Barnesian said:
> > > >
> >
> > > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> > > >
> > > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
> >
> > *
> >
> > All great points.
> >
> > But here's the thing (for me):
> >
> > Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
> >
> > Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
> >
> > I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
>
> You could reverse it and say why are so many young graduates Remainers.
>
> They're deep in debt and have their pay and housing choices restricted by immigration.
>
> Is it because Remain represents the sort of globalist, cosmopolitan image they yearn for in their lives ?
When I worked in Taiwan just 20 years ago, I had to rely on a weekly delivery of the International Daily Telegraph to find out what was happening in British politics.
Globalisation has happened.
You can choose to deny it or embrace it.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @Barnesian said:
> > >
>
> > > > I think it's the attraction to a plain speaking distinctive personality that taps into widespread diverse concerns. A populist. A successful brand. Trump has it. Corbyn has/had it. Blair had it. Contrast with Mrs May or Vince Cable.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Isn’t “plain speaking” synonymous with “common sense”. An inability to reference objective facts and an enthusiasm for simplifying and lying?
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Objective facts complicate simple messages. Best ignored or contradicted if you want to be a successful populist.
> > >
> > > Making good decisions is complicated by facts and difficult trade-offs. That is why it definitely should not be left to "The People". That's why we have a representative democracy, imperfect though it is.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > That is so. But, populists flourish when those who point out (correctly) that life is complicated use that as an excuse to pursue self-serving ends.
>
> *
>
> All great points.
>
> But here's the thing (for me):
>
> Focusing on what is accepted to be a significant chunk of the Leave constituency - the 'left behind and ignored' indigenous working class in post industrial areas of England. Why are they flocking to Nigel Farage and his No Deal Brexit, rather than to Jeremy Corbyn who actually has a raft of policies which will materially benefit them, i.e. an activist state raising taxes on the affluent, attacking unearned privilege and redirecting wealth & opportunity their way?
>
> Is it because Jeremy lacks 'patriotism' in their eyes? Or is it immigration? Are they not particularly fussed about being struggling and hard up so long as they can do it without being knee deep in foreigners?
>
> I genuinely don't know - but I do tend to the view that it is identity, not economics or class, which lies at the heart of Brexit.
The reasons will be different for different people, patriotism and being anti immigration will be two prominent reasons, another would be a lot of them wont think Corbyn's policies will help them or that he would deliver what he promised.
It depends where on the JAM scale you are, if you are mostly reliant on benefits then Corbyn is good for you, if you are just above that, and want to improve your life beyond it then Corbyn is probably bad - a lot of his spending would be primarily benefiting middle class and the precariat not so much the working class. Another reason is people felt like they had won as underdogs in the referendum and have been cheated out of their win against the establishment. That is a very powerful emotion so the simple solution from Farage becomes much popular than the complex answer/fudge offered by Corbyn.
> Duchess of Sussex in labour. Now that will see the media go crazy
You're right-I'd always had her down as a Green party member.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
She doesn't need to as she plays the pro union card in Scotland and attacks Sturgeon over Independence and failed domestic issues
> > @DavidL said:
> > Not really. Salmond and Sturgeon promised pretty similar things, much more public spending (£1,000 a head said the posters), much less tax, retain sterling and membership of the EU, it went on and on. But Scots decided there was something fishy about it. Just too good to be true.
>
> I guess part of the difference is that Scottish voters know way more about the British government than British voters know about the EU, so they weren't susceptible to the kind of epic story that the Leave campaign got away with, whereby the EU was always taking advantage of the UK, but come the exit negotiations they'd be unbelievably generous.
Maybe the Leavers from the EU just had a better case than the Indys.
Personally, I feel a great loyalty to the UK. The EU, not so much. I never felt that was what I belonged to. On a transactional basis I was persuadable that the positives outweighed the negatives but I never, ever identified with it. I don't think I was alone in this.
> > @williamglenn said:
>
> > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> >
>
> > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
>
>
>
> Tbh, no. I did not think that the ERG would be so stupid as to vote against Brexit because it did meet the criteria of their Unicorn. I certainly underestimated the undemocratic arrogance and contempt of those who would not accept the result. A sensible compromise was available which addressed many of the concerns of the remainers whilst giving leavers what they wanted. It's called May's deal and its still on the table.
>
> Symmetry is pleasing and it is appealing to think that the unicorn fanciers of the ERG are balanced by equally reprehensible 'undemocratic arrogance' from hardcore remainers.
>
> Sadly it doesn't really match reality. There was hardly a squeak from remainers from the time of the referendum until the last few months. There were very few demonstrations, and what opposition there was was mainly focused on working out alternative configurations of new centrist party was likely to work.
>
> But once the ERG started their undermining of the official leave process, it simultaneously deprived the referendum result of its legitimacy. From then on the remainers were energised and the massive petition signing and huge march were the result.
>
> The hardline leavers threw it away.
I think you are being a little harsh on Mrs Miller and the MPs who got the case referred to the CJEU from Scotland. Remainers have fought to create more and more hurdles from day 1. Hence the MV provision that has caused so many problems.
> We have reached such a level of economic satiety that economic issues no longer have the traction that they did. Bear in mind the poor aren't complaining about being starved, jobless or assaulted: they're complaining about being ignored and unrepresented. Class loyalty is no longer a predictor of votes.
>
>
> Right. But anger at being ignored implies that there is something important they want (and badly) which is not forthcoming.
>
> What is it? This is what I am fretting about.
>
> For example, contrast the following offers:
>
> (1)
>
> - The rich and corporates to pay more tax.
> - Higher spending on public services.
> - Utilities to be publicly owned.
> - Private schools to lose tax breaks.
> - State Bank to direct investment to the Regions.
>
> (2)
>
> - Leave the European Union without a Deal.
>
> Why, in the name of all that is right and proper in this world, would the struggling and left behind indigenous working class in post industrial England be more attracted to (2) than (1)? To Farage rather than Labour?
>
> Really am exercised by this.
___________
How many of those at the bottom actually vote in the old industrial areas ?
I would say it was much more those who have something but think they are losing out from globalisation who voted Leave.
And I'll reverse the question and ask why did so many of the poor in London vote Remain when globalisation is a driver in the deprivation and inequality they suffer from ?
But yes you are right - there were a few remainers who did a bit more than moaning. Insofar as they had any effect at all it was to weaken the remain case.
> Growth of 0.2% per quarter is not "contraction mode". It's not great growth, but it's still growth
Quite a range though. Eastern Europe is 0.8ish, Germany/france/Italy/UK all zeroish. Spain 0.7% a bit of an outlier for a larger economy.
> > @williamglenn said:
>
> > The proposition that anyone who voted leave had to agree with everything that anyone campaigning for leave said or they could not do so is even more absurd. It really is total nonsense. It was a binary question to which we all brought our own judgment.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Davidson was talking about the current mess which is dominated by loons from the ERG and PV supporters. She was spot on.
>
> >
>
> > Did you not think it was possible to predict the current mess based on the undeliverable promises being made by the Leave campaign combined with their xenophobia?
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to Ruth purging the loons from her own sub branch.
>
> Fat chance she is too busy planning her exit to Westminster and fact that she is among the biggest of the loons even more unlikely. It amazes me how many stupid people there are that vote for these absolute wasters despite them dumping on them constantly.
You can keep her, Malc. A Scottish party leader in Westminster would be about as welcome as me being FM up in North Britain!
Typical unionist pathetic position , how can only Scotland in the world be unable to manage on its own. Backbone required and Tory party removed to the coup where they should be.
It's what Cameron was playing to with his jibe at Corbyn - that Cam's dear old mother would have told Jeremy to "stand up straight, man, put a suit and tie on, and sing the national anthem."
That is the true spirit of Brexit. All of this 'democratic deficit' and 'left behind' business is just an attempt to lend it gravitas.
> > @viewcode said:
>
> > Growth of 0.2% per quarter is not "contraction mode". It's not great growth, but it's still growth
>
> Quite a range though. Eastern Europe is 0.8ish, Germany/france/Italy/UK all zeroish. Spain 0.7% a bit of an outlier for a larger economy.
Not according to the BoE:
"Based on ONS data to February, quarterly GDP growth is
expected to have picked up to 0.5% in 2019 Q1, from 0.2% in
2018 Q4, stronger than projected in the February Report."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/inflation-report/2019/may/inflation-report-may-2019.pdf?la=en&hash=D4985F6D513BF04EB81A28C53F6DB0CFB8CC09FB
Some of that might unwind in Q2 but it was not all stockbuilding for a Brexit that never happened.
> On the 'Tumescent PB Tory hanging on her every word' metric Ruth is certainly drooping. However I think she's still got a way to run with a supine media agog to see what farm animal she mounts next.
>
> Ruth Davidson is liberal, witty and articulate in defence of the Union that is supported by more than half of Scots, which is why the SNP are obsessed by her. But she is shackled to the Tory Party monster. I don't see how she escapes.
Perhaps if she made a minimal effort to distance herself from the frothers, bigots, racists, mad Brexiters and LOLers that seem to have safe haven within her sub branch, Ruth might be able to carve out a separate identity.
However I see that's not going to be a goer.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1125317332509835265
They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
> Indigenous working class voters, especially older ones, are generally social conservatives, they used to identify with Labour figures such as Jim Callaghan or even JohnPrescott - Corbyn's politically correct pacifism is anathema to many of them.
>
> Yes, this is a big part of it IMO. It must be.
>
> It's what Cameron was playing to with his jibe at Corbyn - that Cam's dear old mother would have told Jeremy to "stand up straight, man, put a suit and tie on, and sing the national anthem."
>
> That is the true spirit of Brexit. All of this 'democratic deficit' and 'left behind' business is just an attempt to lend it gravitas.
Let me suggest for Leavers 'community' has a traditional real world meaning while for Remainers it is something which exists through the internet.
> Tory Remainer MPs plot a 'coronation' for either Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove to succeed May by getting them both into the final two with the hope one gives way to the other if they are the last men standing.
>
> They would thus block Boris or Raab from getting to the final two and likely winning the membership vote
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/05/conservative-party-split-price-worth-paying-deliver-brexit-let/
Funny how chief Leave campaigner Michael Gove is always the beneficiary of these murky plots by Remainers.
And it's not GE17 I'm talking about, it's now - the appeal of Farage and No Deal Brexit to our DE citizens.
In particular, given it is clear to everybody that the political cheerleaders of Hard Brexit are almost exclusively reactionary right wing Tories (inc Farage), why does this not discredit it in their eyes?
It's odd.
> ...Let me suggest for Leavers 'community' has a traditional real world meaning while for Remainers it is something which exists through the internet.
>
> Which does rather beg the question as to what we are doing banging on on the Internet on this Bank Holiday...
The weather is crap and we're trying to avoid doing something constructive ?