Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
According to polling a narrow majority of both labour voters and conservative voters in England are in favour of breaking the union 51.5% and 52.5% something those parties should consider when looking at their pro union stance. LD voters are the most unionist bloc at a mere 33% that think breaking the union is something that should be done
So overall including LD voters most English voters want to retain the Union then, even if not as many as want to retain the Union as Welsh voters and that is from the poll with the highest ever voteshare for English independence
I wouldn't call it mostlys its closer than the brexit referendum and well with in polling margin of error
It was a poll conducted by the Scottish nationalist Business for Scotland who have a vested interest in breaking up the UK, another similarly biased poll from Welsh nationalists still found 51% of English Tory voters opposed to English independence with only 35% in favour overall
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
If anyone in the Trump campaign would have described North Carolina as 'super-safe' at any point in the last few weeks, or even few months, then I'd like them to get in touch with me for some sidebets immediately.
I wouldn't be at all shocked if Trump held NC after everything, though I think Biden is rightly modest favourite there, but it hasn't been 'super-safe' for either side all year.
EDIT: I did smile at the quote in the article "Stops in Iowa and Georgia less than 20 days before an election can only mean one thing -- Trump's red wall is collapsing in on him." It's all Red Walls these days.
I can't believe they'd seriously have called North Carolina "super-safe" at any point. As you say, if anyone did then more fool them.
It was a state Trump won by under 4% in 2016, the polling has been close for a long time, and the Senate race has also long been known to be a problem for the GOP. It was always going to be one of the states that could plausibly flip.
That's absolutley right, but it is nevertheless a State Trump has to win. It's hard to see him threading a path to victory without it.
Personally I think it's flipping Blue. There may be some doubt about the effect of the sexting scandal, but with a President prone to a bit of pussy-grabbing himself I suspect that isn't going to impact too much.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote? quite an admission....
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
Ventilation as I understand it is now less common as a treatment protocol than in the first wave so not the best comparison.
If you look at covid patients in hospital (which is a better, although still not perfect comparison), there were 442 on Oct 16th, and 919 at peak. Doubled in 13 days.
Given the lag to hospitalizations, we could easily see another doubling before Friday's firebreaker has an impact.
We should keep an eye on New Hospital Admissions figures as well as new cases IMO. I suspect new hospital admissions don't massively lag new cases and it looks like this number is going up. It may be that the infection rate is slowing but the severity of infections is getting worse as the infection spreads from relatively benign younger cases to more susceptible older people.
If anyone in the Trump campaign would have described North Carolina as 'super-safe' at any point in the last few weeks, or even few months, then I'd like them to get in touch with me for some sidebets immediately.
I wouldn't be at all shocked if Trump held NC after everything, though I think Biden is rightly modest favourite there, but it hasn't been 'super-safe' for either side all year.
EDIT: I did smile at the quote in the article "Stops in Iowa and Georgia less than 20 days before an election can only mean one thing -- Trump's red wall is collapsing in on him." It's all Red Walls these days.
I can't believe they'd seriously have called North Carolina "super-safe" at any point. As you say, if anyone did then more fool them.
It was a state Trump won by under 4% in 2016, the polling has been close for a long time, and the Senate race has also long been known to be a problem for the GOP. It was always going to be one of the states that could plausibly flip.
That's absolutley right, but it is nevertheless a State Trump has to win. It's hard to see him threading a path to victory without it.
Personally I think it's flipping Blue. There may be some doubt about the effect of the sexting scandal, but with a President prone to a bit of pussy-grabbing himself I suspect that isn't going to impact too much.
Yes, the JHKersting 'Forecast Manipulator' gives Trump a 1.2% chance of winning when Biden wins NC, and that seems about right.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
This is premised on the point of view that the harder and faster we get it the more likely the view is to be comprehensively discredited and fully reversed.
I think that’s an extremely unlikely outcome. You can never put the genie back in the bottle.
Well, no, not really. There are few on this Site more Europhile than me but even I acknowledge there is a possibility that I have been wrong all along and next year I will find that Brexit does indeed bring great benefits and leads us to become a happier and more successful nation. What's more I want that to be the case and will gladly stuff my face with humble pie should things turn out that way. On the other hand, if it turns out to more like I imagined it would be (and there are strong signs of that being so already) then let's hope the outcome is clear cut and unambiguous.
I don't want to hear any 'not so bad, is it?' arguments, or 'wrong type of Brexit', or 'bastard EU tucked us up'. It would be far better if the result left no room for any conclusion other than 'Hmmm, that wasn't too smart, was it'.
Then perhaps we could take a deep breath and start again.
Michael Gove is into success criteria for big government projects, isn't he?
For example, the changeover is managed without shortages of significant goods the ongoing trade flow between the UK and EU is smooth, without substantial ongoing queues at ports the UK's share of global trade increases
Anyone fancy drafting a set of criteria where we can all say "yeah, that was a mistake after all"?
The list would be endless but I would certainly start with the exchange rate and the country's credit rating.
Ventilation as I understand it is now less common as a treatment protocol than in the first wave so not the best comparison.
If you look at covid patients in hospital (which is a better, although still not perfect comparison), there were 442 on Oct 16th, and 919 at peak. Doubled in 13 days.
Given the lag to hospitalizations, we could easily see another doubling before Friday's firebreaker has an impact.
This "lag to hospitalisations" has been mentioned regularly for a good six weeks now.
It might be worth thinking about whether catching the virus is as serious now as it was in March/April? Whether the reduction in seriousness is due to a weaker virus or better treatment is besides the point. It is possible that the level of fear in the country is proportioned to the situation in the spring and hasn`t been tempered down to the reduced risk we may (?) currently face. Dunno.
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
According to polling a narrow majority of both labour voters and conservative voters in England are in favour of breaking the union 51.5% and 52.5% something those parties should consider when looking at their pro union stance. LD voters are the most unionist bloc at a mere 33% that think breaking the union is something that should be done
So overall including LD voters most English voters want to retain the Union then, even if not as many as want to retain the Union as Welsh voters and that is from the poll with the highest ever voteshare for English independence
I wouldn't call it mostlys its closer than the brexit referendum and well with in polling margin of error
It was a poll conducted by the Scottish nationalist Business for Scotland who have a vested interest in breaking up the UK, another similarly biased poll from Welsh nationalists still found 51% of English Tory voters opposed to English independence with only 35% in favour overall
Drakeford has closed Wales but wants Westminster to pay for it
I very much doubt Rishi will give a penny more than he is already doing so
Wales and Scotland are testing how much England wants the union to the absolute limit.
Most of England doesnt care less either way. The elite establishment and UK nationalists (20-25%?) want to keep it and English nationalists (10-15%?) dislike Scottish influence enough that they are in favour of a break up. The other 60-70% dont have a strong view.
The centre left and right, and metropolitan interests, should be concerned that if Scotland leaves it fundamentally changes the balance and nature of our politics, but havent noticed yet. By the time they do, as with Brexit, it will be too late.
According to polling a narrow majority of both labour voters and conservative voters in England are in favour of breaking the union 51.5% and 52.5% something those parties should consider when looking at their pro union stance. LD voters are the most unionist bloc at a mere 33% that think breaking the union is something that should be done
So overall including LD voters most English voters want to retain the Union then, even if not as many as want to retain the Union as Welsh voters and that is from the poll with the highest ever voteshare for English independence
I wouldn't call it mostlys its closer than the brexit referendum and well with in polling margin of error
It was a poll conducted by the Scottish nationalist Business for Scotland who have a vested interest in breaking up the UK, another similarly biased poll from Welsh nationalists still found 51% of English Tory voters opposed to English independence with only 35% in favour overall
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
Its my experience on Teesside as well. Yes we have a few long-established Asian communities. But we also have places like Ingleby Barwick which is essentially a small town of 10k white middle class people. And when you knocked on their doors the thing almost all of them talked about was too many foreigners like the ones not where they live. A heck of a lock of the north suffers from parochial bigotry - if you're not from round here you don't belong. Its not racism as its not aimed at a race or skin colour as such - just the "other".
Same in Rochdale. A significant Asian population in all the Manchester satellite towns all ghettoised by zoning policies of long ago. And in the white areas knuckle-dragging morons like two of my Aunties think the asians have it good. So vote for Brexit and the white people will be back in control. Its bollocks - but they're that level of stupid that I had to block them on Facebook for all the far right content they were accidentally sharing.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Met up with a friend the other day who is a junior doctor in a Devon hospital. She said that they are getting more admissions due to alcohol-related health issues than Covid at the moment. She thinks that lockdown has increased alcohol consumption (I`m not sure I buy this). If true this doesn`t say much for Starmer`s recommendation to lock down Devon!
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
Don't the State Legislatures (and Governor with veto?) decide the Congressional boundaries? That's where the Ds also need to make gains.
Met up with a friend the other day who is a junior doctor in a Devon hospital. She said that they are getting more admissions due to alcohol-related health issues than Covid at the moment. She thinks that lockdown has increased alcohol consumption (I`m not sure I buy this). If true this doesn`t say much for Starmer`s recommendation to lock down Devon!
Met up with a friend the other day who is a junior doctor in a Devon hospital. She said that they are getting more admissions due to alcohol-related health issues than Covid at the moment. She thinks that lockdown has increased alcohol consumption (I`m not sure I buy this). If true this doesn`t say much for Starmer`s recommendation to lock down Devon!
Of course you buy alcohol. They don;t give to to you for free.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
That's not fair, Ishmael.
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
Don't the State Legislatures (and Governor with veto?) decide the Congressional boundaries? That's where the Ds also need to make gains.
Yes, which is Tim's and Phil's point. Whoever wins the state houses this year gets to draw the boundaries for the state assemblies and senates and for the federal House of Representatives for the next ten years. The Democrats have historically become quite lazy about fighting hard for state house control and that really bit them in the ass in 2010 as the GOP did very well that year and has reaped the reward in the degree of gerrymandering it was able to do as a result.
That said, an increasing number of states now have independent redistricting commissions akin the the UK boundary commissions.
Met up with a friend the other day who is a junior doctor in a Devon hospital. She said that they are getting more admissions due to alcohol-related health issues than Covid at the moment. She thinks that lockdown has increased alcohol consumption (I`m not sure I buy this). If true this doesn`t say much for Starmer`s recommendation to lock down Devon!
Of course you buy alcohol. They don;t give to to you for free.
It`s curious - I only drink alcohol in a pub or restaurant - very rarely at home. Drinking at home has never been a thing for me.
However, we have a few friends who are definitely glugging copious amounts at home in lockdown. Much more than usual. Weight ballooning too.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
This is premised on the point of view that the harder and faster we get it the more likely the view is to be comprehensively discredited and fully reversed.
I think that’s an extremely unlikely outcome. You can never put the genie back in the bottle.
Well, no, not really. There are few on this Site more Europhile than me but even I acknowledge there is a possibility that I have been wrong all along and next year I will find that Brexit does indeed bring great benefits and leads us to become a happier and more successful nation. What's more I want that to be the case and will gladly stuff my face with humble pie should things turn out that way. On the other hand, if it turns out to more like I imagined it would be (and there are strong signs of that being so already) then let's hope the outcome is clear cut and unambiguous.
I don't want to hear any 'not so bad, is it?' arguments, or 'wrong type of Brexit', or 'bastard EU tucked us up'. It would be far better if the result left no room for any conclusion other than 'Hmmm, that wasn't too smart, was it'.
Then perhaps we could take a deep breath and start again.
Michael Gove is into success criteria for big government projects, isn't he?
For example, the changeover is managed without shortages of significant goods the ongoing trade flow between the UK and EU is smooth, without substantial ongoing queues at ports the UK's share of global trade increases
Anyone fancy drafting a set of criteria where we can all say "yeah, that was a mistake after all"?
The list would be endless but I would certainly start with the exchange rate and the country's credit rating.
The credibility of the credit rating agencies has dipped far faster than our credit rating.
Overall (not net) exports is a decent measure of a country's importance in the world.
Mainly Brexit will be said to be a bad idea if you (and I) feel a bit screwed, and continue to feel that for 20 years. I'm reasonably sure that at the end of such a period you'll concede that Brexit wasn't so bad.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Nonsense. The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation. Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
In pox news my daughter has come out of school telling of drama today where they thought they were all going to be sent home. Covid confirmed in classes downstairs, three of them sent home for 2 weeks, others upstairs believed to be sufficiently separated to not have to go. Obviously older sibs of the younger kids sent home have also gone, so there is the potential of them already having transmitted it...
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
This, if you can get past the paywall is interesting. Leavers have low expectations of Brexit because they never thought highly of government anyway.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
That's farcical. The Senate is far more important and gets a say in everything domestic and most importantly the judiciary. The House is impotent when it comes to judicial appointments.
The state prices and national prices are getting so heavily decoupled we must be close to being able to arb them.
I sense there are some good arbs given enough time and a working calculator. Yesterday I was able to back Trump wins Michigan at an effective 4.16 on SPIN's 100/0 binary and simultaneously lay the same at 3.25 on Betfair. Mega smug city.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
The anti foreigners vote only had to be a few percent to tip the result and although I accept there are very many non anti foreigners amongst the leavers every single leaver I canvassed referred to either Poles, blacks, Romanians or bizarrely Albanians in their response.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Why so squeamish. You might dislike someone because they shag your women and take your job. It so happens that the majority of those who have done the latter (have they though?) have been foreign.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
That's not fair, Ishmael.
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
Yes, I am in much the same position as you. It's precisely the trivialisation of the issue with claims like "I am not afraid, Bring it on, Go big or go home" which I object to. We are where we are. We collectively voted to be here. It is even still legitimate to continue to make the case that it is a good place to be, but no one should be doing that on the back of adolescent one-liners from bad movies tending to suggest that your opponents are girly wimps. This is too serious for that. It's like that arse Blair claiming to have said "I'm in" to Bush, about joining the Iraq war.
The state prices and national prices are getting so heavily decoupled we must be close to being able to arb them.
I sense there are some good arbs given enough time and a working calculator. Yesterday I was able to back Trump wins Michigan at an effective 4.16 on SPIN's 100/0 binary and simultaneously lay the same at 3.25 on Betfair. Mega smug city.
If you browse down the individual States on Betfair they imply a very big Biden win. You could back Trump in all of the swing States and then Biden to win in their National market. It works but it takes time, capital and the returns though certain are small.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
That's not fair, Ishmael.
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
Yes, I am in much the same position as you. It's precisely the trivialisation of the issue with claims like "I am not afraid, Bring it on, Go big or go home" which I object to. We are where we are. We collectively voted to be here. It is even still legitimate to continue to make the case that it is a good place to be, but no one should be doing that on the back of adolescent one-liners from bad movies tending to suggest that your opponents are girly wimps. This is too serious for that. It's like that arse Blair claiming to have said "I'm in" to Bush, about joining the Iraq war.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
Its my experience on Teesside as well. Yes we have a few long-established Asian communities. But we also have places like Ingleby Barwick which is essentially a small town of 10k white middle class people. And when you knocked on their doors the thing almost all of them talked about was too many foreigners like the ones not where they live. A heck of a lock of the north suffers from parochial bigotry - if you're not from round here you don't belong. Its not racism as its not aimed at a race or skin colour as such - just the "other".
Same in Rochdale. A significant Asian population in all the Manchester satellite towns all ghettoised by zoning policies of long ago. And in the white areas knuckle-dragging morons like two of my Aunties think the asians have it good. So vote for Brexit and the white people will be back in control. Its bollocks - but they're that level of stupid that I had to block them on Facebook for all the far right content they were accidentally sharing.
'A heck of a lock of the north suffers from parochial bigotry - if you're not from round here you don't belong. Its not racism as its not aimed at a race or skin colour as such - just the "other".'
Yeah that's very true. Round here they're suspicious of folk from the next town along, three miles down the road. In my youth I used to visit a night club called Shadows - 'Pontefract's premier nitespot' - and there was a Ponte corner, a Castleford corner, a Featherstone corner and a Knottingley corner. The denizens of each town would dutifully, week in, week out, congregate in their respective corners, sallying forth only occasionally to mix in the cultural and genetic melting pot that was the the dancefloor.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Why so squeamish. You might dislike someone because they shag your women and take your job. It so happens that the majority of those who have done the latter (have they though?) have been foreign.
So say you don't like foreigners.
Because voting to do something about the disadvantage put upon you by the governments policy of mass immigration doesn't require a dislike of foreigners. We talk in nuanced terms on here all the time, it is strange that such pejorative, broad strokes are the way to go when explaining the Leave vote
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
This, if you can get past the paywall is interesting. Leavers have low expectations of Brexit because they never thought highly of government anyway.
Which @Peter_the_Punter's point, suggests that those attempting to sort the Brexit mess out after the fact, won't get a huge pushback from most Leavers. They will simply disengage. Presumably as long as the UK doesn't formally rejoin.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
"The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments"
The Senate is a co-equal part of the legislative branch. All federal legislation has to pass both houses of Congress. This is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
That's farcical. The Senate is far more important and gets a say in everything domestic and most importantly the judiciary. The House is impotent when it comes to judicial appointments.
Control of the budget, control of most domestic legislation in the US is controlled by the House, the President proposes it but the House has to approve it, hence Obama was only to get Obamacare through when the Democrats controlled the House and Bush was only able to get his tax cuts through when the GOP controlled the House.
It does not matter if your party controls the Senate alone as it needs House support too for domestic federal legislation to pass.
The executive branch proposes appointments to the Federal Judiciary and SC with Senate approval so that did not contradict anything I said
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Nonsense. The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation. Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
You only need control of 1 chamber of congress to block the President's agenda, 2 is just a bonus
Is Construction work allowed in Wales during the lockdown?
Well there's a question. Given the last general improvements in Wales were based on the English demolishing unsightly fortifications about a thousand years ago I think we really need to ask as to why you're asking!?
I'm pretty sure this is a Rugby training facility application - they've always been denied on principle
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
But perhaps you have to dislike foreigners in order to believe that they are the problem. EU migrants pay more money into the tax system than they take in benefits (so increase the resources available) and the evidence that the net effect of immigration is to reduce wages is negligible at best.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
"The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments"
The Senate is a co-equal part of the legislative branch. All federal legislation has to pass both houses of Congress. This is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.
'...has to pass both houses of Congress' so once the President's party has lost the House his control of federal legislation and setting of the domestic agenda is lost, thanks for the confirmation I was absolutely right
Perve as well as bigot. Not without company in his party.
He may regret that for a very long time.
I have an old school friend who appeared once in his teens on Ready Steady Go. He was dressed in his full mod regalia, complete with cute little hat. The camera closed in on him as he danced in his moddy way. He's 72 now and people still tease him about it.
Just looking at tests processed and testing capacity, they are getting very close to one another again. Certainly capacity hasn't increased enough to cope if rule of 6 etc doesn't dampen this down.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
Its my experience on Teesside as well. Yes we have a few long-established Asian communities. But we also have places like Ingleby Barwick which is essentially a small town of 10k white middle class people. And when you knocked on their doors the thing almost all of them talked about was too many foreigners like the ones not where they live. A heck of a lock of the north suffers from parochial bigotry - if you're not from round here you don't belong. Its not racism as its not aimed at a race or skin colour as such - just the "other".
Same in Rochdale. A significant Asian population in all the Manchester satellite towns all ghettoised by zoning policies of long ago. And in the white areas knuckle-dragging morons like two of my Aunties think the asians have it good. So vote for Brexit and the white people will be back in control. Its bollocks - but they're that level of stupid that I had to block them on Facebook for all the far right content they were accidentally sharing.
'A heck of a lock of the north suffers from parochial bigotry - if you're not from round here you don't belong. Its not racism as its not aimed at a race or skin colour as such - just the "other".'
Yeah that's very true. Round here they're suspicious of folk from the next town along, three miles down the road. In my youth I used to visit a night club called Shadows - 'Pontefract's premier nitespot' - and there was a Ponte corner, a Castleford corner, a Featherstone corner and a Knottingley corner. The denizens of each town would dutifully, week in, week out, congregate in their respective corners, sallying forth only occasionally to mix in the cultural and genetic melting pot that was the the dancefloor.
Happy days.
Grew up in Rochdale (obviously). The "townships" were truly insular, and it wasn't unknown for kids from Wardle, Littleborough, Milrow etc to have fights between their respective groups. Then I went to 6th Form college in Oldham. Where the exact same thing happened with kids from Glodwick hostile to kids from Fitton Hill. And here in (apparently) God's own Yorkshire the town mayor posted on Facebook at 3am whilst steaming drunk that Labour's candidates (Mrs RP and I) weren't from here, would never understand here and "would do better if they went back home". That the independents led by his eminence the mayor walked the election wasn't a surprise.
And yet apparently Gillian Duffy was some kind of aberration. She really isn't. Again, its not overt racism. Its just bigotry.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Indeed I've read several posts on this thread who basically want to characterise people who have concerns about immigration as automatically racists and effectively seek to cancel them and their views as, of course , no further argument is necessary. I was a remain voter myself but can so easily understand why the argument was lost when so many on the left throw out the word bigot or racist to any who dare to question the left liberal view of the world. Four years on from the vote and they simply do not get it.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
Your comment that the Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments is dubious at best. Just as an example, Trump's problems in removing and replacing Obamacare (a piece of domestic legislation) weren't in the House but in the Senate. Legislation can also originate in either.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
Don't the State Legislatures (and Governor with veto?) decide the Congressional boundaries? That's where the Ds also need to make gains.
Yes. Hence the need for "downticket" voting this year.
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
This, if you can get past the paywall is interesting. Leavers have low expectations of Brexit because they never thought highly of government anyway.
anxious though most Britons are, they are still probably underestimating Brexit’s impact.
although not in every respect:
This divide has turned out to be weaker than the American red-blue split: God isn’t involved, few Britons had strong views on Europe before 2016 and there are no militias to fight this one out.
Many Leavers in the focus groups have indeed become Brexit-sceptics. Though they distrust media reports, they pay attention to their personal experiences and those of friends and family. For instance, a Leaver in eastern England told his group he lost a German company as a client because of Brexit. “Don’t you think we’ve shot ourselves in the foot?” a south-eastern Leaver asked his fellows.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
That's farcical. The Senate is far more important and gets a say in everything domestic and most importantly the judiciary. The House is impotent when it comes to judicial appointments.
Control of the budget, control of most domestic legislation in the US is controlled by the House, the President proposes it but the House has to approve it, hence Obama was only to get Obamacare through when the Democrats controlled the House and Bush was only able to get his tax cuts through when the GOP controlled the House.
It does not matter if your party controls the Senate as it needs House support too for domestic federal legislation to pass.
The executive branch proposes appointments to the Federal Judiciary and SC with Senate approval so that did not contradict anything I said
"Control of the budget, control of most domestic legislation in the US is controlled by the House"
NO! For general legislation the House and Senate are co-equal. The only privilege the House has over the Senate is that revenue bills (which is not the same as the budget) must originate in the House. That's it. The Senate can reject such bills just like it can reject any other bill. The US Senate is not like the British House of Lords but with extra ratification powers as you seem to think. It is a fully fledged legislative chamber with the equal powers over passing laws as the House.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
You make a fair point, but no-one seemed to ask why the UK, in particular, has low wages and low state resources. Or why that's the EU's fault.
I know the response will be foreigners are lowering wages. They might be in London and the big cities. They ain't round here. The EU didn't shift manufacturing abroad. I wonder about the political leanings of the Boards of all the companies that did. But if manufacturing and heavy industry leaving the UK is an inevitable side effect of globalisation, why weren't the left behind communities, and the ex-mining ones, supported instead of being left to rot? I grew up in the 80s and 90s and until I moved away in the late 90s, just as New Labour came in, I didn't realise how badly areas like the one I grew up in had been hung out to dry.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
The anti foreigners vote only had to be a few percent to tip the result and although I accept there are very many non anti foreigners amongst the leavers every single leaver I canvassed referred to either Poles, blacks, Romanians or bizarrely Albanians in their response.
You may be right in this - but so what. all votes are equal whatever the motivation. Anti foreigners exist everywhere - plenty here in Spain where I live. The failure still lies with those unable to address their concerns.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
That's not fair, Ishmael.
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
Yes, I am in much the same position as you. It's precisely the trivialisation of the issue with claims like "I am not afraid, Bring it on, Go big or go home" which I object to. We are where we are. We collectively voted to be here. It is even still legitimate to continue to make the case that it is a good place to be, but no one should be doing that on the back of adolescent one-liners from bad movies tending to suggest that your opponents are girly wimps. This is too serious for that. It's like that arse Blair claiming to have said "I'm in" to Bush, about joining the Iraq war.
And there's a neat irony. As a country, we voted for Brexit and Johnson, but that was in part because they confidently predicted that we wouldn't end up here. But to anyone with eyes to see, ears to listen and a brain to think, it was always a significant possibility.
One area the Democrats definitely have got in the mud with Trump is on a potential vaccine. It's something that really shouldn't be played politics with. But you can't really blame them.
Yeah, in my neck of the woods (anecdata...) I spoke to many, many people pre-Referendum, usually vainly trying to get them to vote Remain. I didn't hear much concern about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, or a remote, unelected bunch of Brussels Eurocrats. What I did hear a lot was 'sovereignty' which became a euphemism for many things - another stroke of genius by the twin Leave campaigns was getting a word loaded with whatever symbolism and meaning an individual wanted to foist onto it - but mainly it was about getting rid of foreigners, usually non-white, though Eastern Europeans got some flak as well. It's 98% White British where I am, and for miles around until you get to Leeds, basically.
I tried to get loads of people, who up here en masse still have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, to understand my point of view that Brexit was/is basically driven by Thatcher's descendants, her heirs, but with increased ideological fervour. To no avail, cos forriners innit.
Anyway, too late now. I hope all the Leavers I know are happy with the situation post-1st Jan. If there's no deal, I think they will feel slightly aggrieved.
This, if you can get past the paywall is interesting. Leavers have low expectations of Brexit because they never thought highly of government anyway.
Which @Peter_the_Punter's point, suggests that those attempting to sort the Brexit mess out after the fact, won't get a huge pushback from most Leavers. They will simply disengage. Presumably as long as the UK doesn't formally rejoin.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Thing is people do wrongly blame foreigners for taking jobs and more than their share of state resources. On average each immigrant creates one additional job (equivalent to their own) in addition to the job pool that was already there. But because they are taking relatively lower waged jobs, the net effect is to boost wages for the indigenous population. The additional job brings tax revenue that is well in excess of the amount specifically consumed by the jobholder.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Must admit I'm more than a little inclined to say 'Bring it on' myself, but from a different perspective, I think, from our Phil.
If you're going to make a mistake, you may as well make it a big one. At least that way the lesson is well learned.
I agree. Go big or go home.
If we've made a mistake we will learn from it. I'm not afraid of failure.
This is not a test of your personal courage and manhood, though. You presumably don't have a job or a business. Other people do.
That's not fair, Ishmael.
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
Yes, I am in much the same position as you. It's precisely the trivialisation of the issue with claims like "I am not afraid, Bring it on, Go big or go home" which I object to. We are where we are. We collectively voted to be here. It is even still legitimate to continue to make the case that it is a good place to be, but no one should be doing that on the back of adolescent one-liners from bad movies tending to suggest that your opponents are girly wimps. This is too serious for that. It's like that arse Blair claiming to have said "I'm in" to Bush, about joining the Iraq war.
And there's a neat irony. As a country, we voted for Brexit and Johnson, but that was in part because they confidently predicted that we wouldn't end up here. But to anyone with eyes to see, ears to listen and a brain to think, it was always a significant possibility.
To be fair he only claimed to have an oven ready deal, what made anyone think he had an oven?
@FF43 Yes, that's what I expect. Rejoining however is out of the question - for generations, I should think, if not forever. Why on earth would they want us back anyway? And in the unlikely event they did it would be on terms so much worse than we had that no political Party could ever sell them to the public.
Northern parochialism is a real thing – and it's utterly pathetic.
It does manifest in public policy – hence why Greater Newcastle doesn't have a metro mayor but 'North of Tyne' does.
The Gateshead councillors didn't want to merge with the city council, one minute's walk across the river.
There's no faster way to wind up a Gatesheader than praise the "Newcastle Sage Centre"
When I was doing work experience at BBC Manchester I went out to do a piece on the city's expanding hotel sector. Interviewing the manager of a new Premier Inn who told me all about how great it was to have this new central Manchester location. I pointed out the window down the street at the Welcome to Manchester sign and pointed out he was in Salford. Same with "Renault Manchester Trinity Way Salford" ads on the radio.
And up here? Stockton Riverside College is in Thornaby. Durham University Queens Campus Stockton is in Thornaby. Winds our mayor up something chronic
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Why so squeamish. You might dislike someone because they shag your women and take your job. It so happens that the majority of those who have done the latter (have they though?) have been foreign.
So say you don't like foreigners.
Because voting to do something about the disadvantage put upon you by the governments policy of mass immigration doesn't require a dislike of foreigners. We talk in nuanced terms on here all the time, it is strange that such pejorative, broad strokes are the way to go when explaining the Leave vote
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
"The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments"
The Senate is a co-equal part of the legislative branch. All federal legislation has to pass both houses of Congress. This is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.
'...has to pass both houses of Congress' so once the President's party has lost the House his control of federal legislation and setting of the domestic agenda is lost, thanks for the confirmation I was absolutely right
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Nonsense. The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation. Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
You only need control of 1 chamber of congress to block the President's agenda, 2 is just a bonus
It really isn't the case that as soon as you lose one chamber as President, you lose control.
Since you can veto bills as President, the reality is you move into a compromise phase where your team discuss with the leadership of the Senate and House what items on your agenda you might be able to progress (with some tweaks) and what of their agenda you might be willing to sign.
You are in a much, much stronger position as President if you hold one of the two chambers in your party as you have more to bargain with. For example, if you still have the Senate, you have strong appointment powers (as you say) so you can trade that against legislative concessions from the House leadership. And if you still have the House and the other side only has a slim Senate majority, you may well only need to buy off one or two blue state Republicans or blue dog Democrats with a nice (and not wildly expensive) little side benefit for their state to get a key piece of legislation through.
You also only need to satisfy one group of people - remember that the House GOP (or Dems) don't necessarily have the same aims at all as their Senate colleagues. They don't map that well onto each other geographically and, rather crucially, the House has a two year cycle and the Senate six - so they are playing very different games in terms of what they want to achieve and when and you get the much longer term, grey bearded strategic thinkers in the Senate and the "what am I going to say to my constituents in the elections in a few months?" folk at the start of their careers in the House. So it's a hell of a lot harder if you control neither chamber, whereas it's not ideal but not the end of the world by any means if you have one of two.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
That's farcical. The Senate is far more important and gets a say in everything domestic and most importantly the judiciary. The House is impotent when it comes to judicial appointments.
Control of the budget, control of most domestic legislation in the US is controlled by the House, the President proposes it but the House has to approve it, hence Obama was only to get Obamacare through when the Democrats controlled the House and Bush was only able to get his tax cuts through when the GOP controlled the House.
It does not matter if your party controls the Senate as it needs House support too for domestic federal legislation to pass.
The executive branch proposes appointments to the Federal Judiciary and SC with Senate approval so that did not contradict anything I said
"Control of the budget, control of most domestic legislation in the US is controlled by the House"
NO! For general legislation the House and Senate are co-equal. The only privilege the House has over the Senate is that revenue bills (which is not the same as the budget) must originate in the House. That's it. The Senate can reject such bills just like it can reject any other bill. The US Senate is not like the British House of Lords but with extra ratification powers as you seem to think. It is a fully fledged legislative chamber with the equal powers over passing laws as the House.
Which does not change my point at all that once the President's party has lost control of the House it does not matter if his party still has control of the Senate, he will still not be able to get legislation through (including his proposed budget), so at that point all the Senate can help the President on is judicial appointments and treaties approval, exactly as I originally said.
Apparently now it's a great British triumph that the EU are refusing to play silly games and haven't walked out in a huff, but are patiently repeating what they've said all along.
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Indeed I've read several posts on this thread who basically want to characterise people who have concerns about immigration as automatically racists and effectively seek to cancel them and their views as, of course , no further argument is necessary. I was a remain voter myself but can so easily understand why the argument was lost when so many on the left throw out the word bigot or racist to any who dare to question the left liberal view of the world. Four years on from the vote and they simply do not get it.
There are two distinct groups of people. From both the remain and leave camp there will be people concerned about immigration for various justifiable reasons. There is also a different group of people who irrationally hate foreigners. Naturally they must fall into the leave camp. The argument is how significant this group is. Leavers who aren't racistist clearly don't want to be tarnished with association with this group so play down its significance. Sadly I believe it is substantial.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
@HYUFD, with the greatest possible respect, maybe you should consider not commenting so much on US politics as you clearly know next to nothing about it.
So what of what I said was wrong then Mr Doctoral Thesis in US politics?
"The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments"
The Senate is a co-equal part of the legislative branch. All federal legislation has to pass both houses of Congress. This is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.
'...has to pass both houses of Congress' so once the President's party has lost the House his control of federal legislation and setting of the domestic agenda is lost, thanks for the confirmation I was absolutely right
I think I'm the only Revolutionary Leninist, Steiner/Vallentyne Left-Libertarian, Leeds Utd Fan.
Democracy = Social Fascism
WACCOE
I'm getting increasingly concerned at some posters on here playing fast and loose with democracy.
We have this post, which I can't say entirely surprises me coming from you, and we had @IanB2 ostensibly a centrist and ex-LD flirting with benign dictatorship as being the best form of government the other day.
I think you both need to go back to the history books and read about what life in non-democratic societies is like.
Unfortunately I fear that the peoples of what increasingly looks like "the former" UK are not going to enjoy finding out a whole lot more about "the lessons of history" than they can really cope with.
At every point since the historic wrong turn of Brexit, the far right has doubled down, so now the "impossible" "failure" of a "no deal" is now an odds on outcome. The consequences for our nouveau pauvre PM may include finding that the Eton College where he wants to send his son has been burned down by an army of furious and unemployed farmers, fisherfolk and even financiers.
Certainly, having won the referendum by a whisker under extremely dubious circumstances, the winners could have reached out to the losers and created a compromise- EEA, EFTA, whatever- but they chose four years of uncertainty, rejecting any kind of compromise deal whatsoever as a BINO (not withstanding that these compromises were actually the only solution that people could be said to have "voted for") and then grabbing the tiller and steering us straight towards an economically half witted no deal, while lying all the way.
If the break up of the UK is indeed the result of "no deal", then the successor republics will probably prosecute the ****s responsible.
"Crucifixion is too good for them"
I do study history and the future of what is currently "the UK", both economically and politically, will not be fixed in my lifetime if no deal goes through. Not sure how many UK citizens have taken citizenship elsewhere, but a trickle may well become a flood and I`m contemplating joining them. We know how this story ends...
Top post, Cicero. Possibly hyperbolic; possibly not.
For all the comments about brexiteers should have reached out to remainers and compromised....where was this reaching out by the pro eu people in the 40 years of membership? You called them fruitcakes and closet loons for most of that time and told to suck it up so I can understand why they feel no need to reach out.
As you sow you shall reap seem apposite
There is plenty of blame to go round on both sides.
The depressing part is the discussion never seem to move on.
We just seem to fall back in telling each other to go fuck ourselves.
The conversation is shaped by events. At present, we have a large number of "experts" (I know) saying that things could be difficult in January if we don't have a deal.
Many people (shout out to our Phil) say: "bring it on".
Is it any wonder that sensible people despair.
And oh from FPT when I pointed out how a large number of people was motivated to vote Brexit because of a dislike of foreigners? They were.
Very reasonable until your last paragraph.
You can both like and admire foreigners and want controls on immigration at the same time.
Indeed, it might be to ensure safe continuation and consent for acceptance of the former that you see it as so important to ensure the latter.
I think it is uncontentious to say that a dislike of foreigners was one of the main, if not the main motivating factor for a large number of people who voted Leave.
Not "all" as @Philip_Thompson has confirmed, but for a large number.
That wasn’t my experience from knocking on doors, although I certainly found some (10-15%) who put it like that.
Bear in mind that not all the working class use the flowery, nuanced and carefully caveated language that the professional middle classes do. Many use the unambiguous language of the shop floor and don’t call a spade a shovel when they’re feeling frustrated.
It doesn’t make them all bigots, and an experienced canvasser can tell the difference. It’s the difference between a Gillian Duffy to a Nick Griffin, for example.
It may not be all, but it was enough.
No it wasn't.
I think 10-15% is definately more than 3.5%
3.5% was not enough. 50%+1 was enough.
Are you saying that 50%+1 were motivated by the anti foreignor vote?
No. I'm saying 50%+1 was the threshold for winning and the anti foreigner vote was nowhere close to that.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
As long as people mischaracterise a dislike of competing for low wages and state resources with an influx of immigrants as "a dislike of foreigners", I doubt the debate will get anywhere. It makes Remain voters feel like they lost because they are more pure than Leave, so let them think it, everyone needs consolation
Why so squeamish. You might dislike someone because they shag your women and take your job. It so happens that the majority of those who have done the latter (have they though?) have been foreign.
So say you don't like foreigners.
Because voting to do something about the disadvantage put upon you by the governments policy of mass immigration doesn't require a dislike of foreigners. We talk in nuanced terms on here all the time, it is strange that such pejorative, broad strokes are the way to go when explaining the Leave vote
Saves a lot of time, though.
While failing to understand why the vote was lost.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Nonsense. The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation. Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
You only need control of 1 chamber of congress to block the President's agenda, 2 is just a bonus
It really isn't the case that as soon as you lose one chamber as President, you lose control.
Since you can veto bills as President, the reality is you move into a compromise phase where your team discuss with the leadership of the Senate and House what items on your agenda you might be able to progress (with some tweaks) and what of their agenda you might be willing to sign.
You are in a much, much stronger position as President if you hold one of the two chambers in your party as you have more to bargain with. For example, if you still have the Senate, you have strong appointment powers (as you say) so you can trade that against legislative concessions from the House leadership. And if you still have the House and the other side only has a slim Senate majority, you may well only need to buy off one or two blue state Republicans or blue dog Democrats with a nice (and not wildly expensive) little side benefit for their state to get a key piece of legislation through.
You also only need to satisfy one group of people - remember that the House GOP (or Dems) don't necessarily have the same aims at all as their Senate colleagues. They don't map that well onto each other geographically and, rather crucially, the House has a two year cycle and the Senate six - so they are playing very different games in terms of what they want to achieve and when and you get the much longer term, grey bearded strategic thinkers in the Senate and the "what am I going to say to my constituents in the elections in a few months?" folk at the start of their careers in the House. So it's a hell of a lot harder if you control neither chamber, whereas it's not ideal but not the end of the world by any means if you have one of two.
The point is though you still have to compromise your agenda, you can no longer set the agenda as you could when you controlled both chambers
Let me guess, one of these parties will be in line with Hitchens beliefs, and the other opposed to them? He is not egocentric at all, very aware of the nuances of the countrys politics.
Re Trumpsters being confident and Dems being scared, it suits both sides' GOTV efforts to talk up Trump's chances at this point.
- Republicans need their voters to think Trump is still in with a chance to ensure their supporters believe voting is worthwhile and so do - Dems are genuinely jittery after 2016, but also don't want this election to be even close, so that Trump has no path to challenge either its legitimacy or to seek to invalidate certain ballot papers in order to steal the election or to refer it to the Supreme Court. Also, the Dems want to use the top of the ticket to win many very important state-level elections.
Your final line is critical.
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
Yet ironically even if the Democrats win a landslide this year and the Presidency, the House and the Senate they will almost certainly lose Congress again in the 2022 midterms when the usual midterm protest vote sees a swing back to the post Trump GOP, as 2 years after Obama was elected by a landslide in 2008 the Democrats lost the House in 2010 and 2 years after Trump won in 2016 the GOP lost the House in 2018.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Winning in 2022 will be too late for redistricting.
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
The Senate only really has influence over foreign treaties and executive appointments, once your party loses control of the House of Representatives so does your ability to set the US domestic agenda
Nonsense. The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation. Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
You only need control of 1 chamber of congress to block the President's agenda, 2 is just a bonus
It really isn't the case that as soon as you lose one chamber as President, you lose control.
Since you can veto bills as President, the reality is you move into a compromise phase where your team discuss with the leadership of the Senate and House what items on your agenda you might be able to progress (with some tweaks) and what of their agenda you might be willing to sign.
You are in a much, much stronger position as President if you hold one of the two chambers in your party as you have more to bargain with. For example, if you still have the Senate, you have strong appointment powers (as you say) so you can trade that against legislative concessions from the House leadership. And if you still have the House and the other side only has a slim Senate majority, you may well only need to buy off one or two blue state Republicans or blue dog Democrats with a nice (and not wildly expensive) little side benefit for their state to get a key piece of legislation through.
You also only need to satisfy one group of people - remember that the House GOP (or Dems) don't necessarily have the same aims at all as their Senate colleagues. They don't map that well onto each other geographically and, rather crucially, the House has a two year cycle and the Senate six - so they are playing very different games in terms of what they want to achieve and when and you get the much longer term, grey bearded strategic thinkers in the Senate and the "what am I going to say to my constituents in the elections in a few months?" folk at the start of their careers in the House. So it's a hell of a lot harder if you control neither chamber, whereas it's not ideal but not the end of the world by any means if you have one of two.
The point is though you still have to compromise your agenda, you can no longer set the agenda as you could when you controlled both chambers
You've moved your position from saying if you lose one chamber you lose your ability to set the domestic agenda to saying you need to make some compromises... which just isn't the same at all.
Apparently now it's a great British triumph that the EU are refusing to play silly games and haven't walked out in a huff, but are patiently repeating what they've said all along.
Any hope of the Brexiteers falling for this?
Yes as long as they get fish, and they will, they will be happy and triumphalist for a few months. Then someone from the brexit harder camp will find a new issue to rail against.
Comments
The Dems goal is not just to win but to win big. Win very big.
They don't just want the Oval Office, they want the Senators and they want to win the House votes and the State Representatives who will be determining Redistricting issues next year. If for instance Texas can be flipped then the Democrats redistricting Texas could make the map look very different to the GOP doing so.
However if Trump is re elected the Democrats will likely win a huge majority in Congress in 2022 and be very likely to win back the Presidency in 2024
Personally I think it's flipping Blue. There may be some doubt about the effect of the sexting scandal, but with a President prone to a bit of pussy-grabbing himself I suspect that isn't going to impact too much.
Remain won over 48% and lost. If Leave was just an anti foreigner vote then it would have lost massively. The anti foreigner vote was not enough to win the referendum.
https://projects.jhkforecasts.com/presidential-forecast/manipulator.html
In order to win for redistricting they need to win this year. This is the redistricting election and this year's winner will control gerrymandering for a decade to come.
Also Obama held the Senate for six years not two. Ditto Trump has held it for four. From memory Dubya also held it for six.
It might be worth thinking about whether catching the virus is as serious now as it was in March/April? Whether the reduction in seriousness is due to a weaker virus or better treatment is besides the point. It is possible that the level of fear in the country is proportioned to the situation in the spring and hasn`t been tempered down to the reduced risk we may (?) currently face. Dunno.
Same in Rochdale. A significant Asian population in all the Manchester satellite towns all ghettoised by zoning policies of long ago. And in the white areas knuckle-dragging morons like two of my Aunties think the asians have it good. So vote for Brexit and the white people will be back in control. Its bollocks - but they're that level of stupid that I had to block them on Facebook for all the far right content they were accidentally sharing.
https://twitter.com/mathie_dan/status/1318165582085296128?s=20
This is a another treat Covid only outcome
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54598728
I'm a pensioner. Do you think I am so naive as to think my pension will be unaffected if it all goes pear-shaped? We will all be in deep shit, all of us. But if we voted for it, who can we blame but ourselves? And it's no good saying 'but I was one of the 48%' because that's the way a democracy works. The other 52% can always drop you in it.
Who can dig us out of it but ourselves? It's what we will have to do, like it or not.
That said, an increasing number of states now have independent redistricting commissions akin the the UK boundary commissions.
However, we have a few friends who are definitely glugging copious amounts at home in lockdown. Much more than usual. Weight ballooning too.
Overall (not net) exports is a decent measure of a country's importance in the world.
Mainly Brexit will be said to be a bad idea if you (and I) feel a bit screwed, and continue to feel that for 20 years. I'm reasonably sure that at the end of such a period you'll concede that Brexit wasn't so bad.
The senate can legislate too - and more to the point can block legislation.
Without control of both houses, and with a deeply obstructionist opposition, any agenda is considerably blunted.
Not without company in his party.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1316673186226991106
So say you don't like foreigners.
Yeah that's very true. Round here they're suspicious of folk from the next town along, three miles down the road. In my youth I used to visit a night club called Shadows - 'Pontefract's premier nitespot' - and there was a Ponte corner, a Castleford corner, a Featherstone corner and a Knottingley corner. The denizens of each town would dutifully, week in, week out, congregate in their respective corners, sallying forth only occasionally to mix in the cultural and genetic melting pot that was the the dancefloor.
Happy days.
The Senate is a co-equal part of the legislative branch. All federal legislation has to pass both houses of Congress. This is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.
It does not matter if your party controls the Senate alone as it needs House support too for domestic federal legislation to pass.
The executive branch proposes appointments to the Federal Judiciary and SC with Senate approval so that did not contradict anything I said
It does manifest in public policy – hence why Greater Newcastle doesn't have a metro mayor but 'North of Tyne' does.
The Gateshead councillors didn't want to merge with the city council, one minute's walk across the river.
I'm pretty sure this is a Rugby training facility application - they've always been denied on principle
I have an old school friend who appeared once in his teens on Ready Steady Go. He was dressed in his full mod regalia, complete with cute little hat. The camera closed in on him as he danced in his moddy way. He's 72 now and people still tease him about it.
Some things you never live down.
And yet apparently Gillian Duffy was some kind of aberration. She really isn't. Again, its not overt racism. Its just bigotry.
anxious though most Britons are, they are still probably underestimating Brexit’s impact.
although not in every respect:
This divide has turned out to be weaker than the American red-blue split: God isn’t involved, few Britons had strong views on Europe before 2016 and there are no militias to fight this one out.
Many Leavers in the focus groups have indeed become Brexit-sceptics. Though they distrust media reports, they pay attention to their personal experiences and those of friends and family. For instance, a Leaver in eastern England told his group he lost a German company as a client because of Brexit. “Don’t you think we’ve shot ourselves in the foot?” a south-eastern Leaver asked his fellows.
NO! For general legislation the House and Senate are co-equal. The only privilege the House has over the Senate is that revenue bills (which is not the same as the budget) must originate in the House. That's it. The Senate can reject such bills just like it can reject any other bill. The US Senate is not like the British House of Lords but with extra ratification powers as you seem to think. It is a fully fledged legislative chamber with the equal powers over passing laws as the House.
I know the response will be foreigners are lowering wages. They might be in London and the big cities. They ain't round here. The EU didn't shift manufacturing abroad. I wonder about the political leanings of the Boards of all the companies that did. But if manufacturing and heavy industry leaving the UK is an inevitable side effect of globalisation, why weren't the left behind communities, and the ex-mining ones, supported instead of being left to rot? I grew up in the 80s and 90s and until I moved away in the late 90s, just as New Labour came in, I didn't realise how badly areas like the one I grew up in had been hung out to dry.
But you can't really blame them.
Yes, that's what I expect. Rejoining however is out of the question - for generations, I should think, if not forever. Why on earth would they want us back anyway? And in the unlikely event they did it would be on terms so much worse than we had that no political Party could ever sell them to the public.
And then there's the humiliation...... Forget it.
And up here? Stockton Riverside College is in Thornaby. Durham University Queens Campus Stockton is in Thornaby. Winds our mayor up something chronic
Since you can veto bills as President, the reality is you move into a compromise phase where your team discuss with the leadership of the Senate and House what items on your agenda you might be able to progress (with some tweaks) and what of their agenda you might be willing to sign.
You are in a much, much stronger position as President if you hold one of the two chambers in your party as you have more to bargain with. For example, if you still have the Senate, you have strong appointment powers (as you say) so you can trade that against legislative concessions from the House leadership. And if you still have the House and the other side only has a slim Senate majority, you may well only need to buy off one or two blue state Republicans or blue dog Democrats with a nice (and not wildly expensive) little side benefit for their state to get a key piece of legislation through.
You also only need to satisfy one group of people - remember that the House GOP (or Dems) don't necessarily have the same aims at all as their Senate colleagues. They don't map that well onto each other geographically and, rather crucially, the House has a two year cycle and the Senate six - so they are playing very different games in terms of what they want to achieve and when and you get the much longer term, grey bearded strategic thinkers in the Senate and the "what am I going to say to my constituents in the elections in a few months?" folk at the start of their careers in the House. So it's a hell of a lot harder if you control neither chamber, whereas it's not ideal but not the end of the world by any means if you have one of two.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1318204541070942210
Apparently now it's a great British triumph that the EU are refusing to play silly games and haven't walked out in a huff, but are patiently repeating what they've said all along.
Any hope of the Brexiteers falling for this?
306,893 tests
These numbers continue to amaze me
13972 (by reporting date).
As ever - specimen date is what counts.