Sampson

Weird analogy. Leaving the eu meant much more beuocracy amongst people coming into the uk for the home office, which is what anti-immigrant parties want. Immigration had to actually rise since Brexit to fill in the gaps and now it has to go through the home office instead so just builds up much bigger queues. The freedom of movement in the eu meant people could move much more easily across a much bigger landmass to where jobs and housing are. Norway and Switzerland both voted to stay out of the eu but still drifted back towards it. The EU is the biggest economy in the world and had a soft geopolitical power only matched by the US and China and it’s right on our doorstep. While the eu exists it’s they’re it’s very difficult to see us genuinely not drifting back towards it. Brexit was always a fantasy because it supposed that the UK had both the soft and economic power to beat out the EU when it comes to trade deals and geopolitical power which is just never going to happen just by the sheer size of the population and markets, other countries will always favour the EU over the UK and so it’s an economic vacuum that’s always going to see us lose out while we’re there, staying out of rather than being in it and trying to influence it it was always going to be cutting our nose off to spite our face. I’d be very surprised if the uk doesn’t drift back towards the eu over the next 5-15 years. in some shape or other freedom of movement will likely come back. This hard Brexit has very little support in virtually all polls.

And now for a more pithy post, 31st May 2024, let us never forget:

Well it’s changed a lot over the years and I think a lot of the confusion is that a lot of policies are not inherently right or left wing and indeed I’ve seen many policies actually change sides over the years but with different underlying arguments, it’s just that they generally get supported by one side or the other depending on the arguments of the time and so you get different generations of people considering themselves left or right wing despite believing different things . I have seen support to join and then leave the eec or eu shift from being a right wing to a left wing back to a right wing issue for example. The terms comes from the French revolutionary days where the left wing of the parliament were anti monarchists and the right wing were monarchists. And issues switch from being right wing to left wing and vice versa but it’s often for different underlying arguments. For example, George Galloway and Nigel Farage both opposed EU membership and immigration, but Galloway will argue it’s to keep the integrity of state led economy and Farage will argue it’s to keep crime down and to keep the integrity of the private economy. Galloway promotes a very old school vision of “socialism in one nation” that was more popular in the 1970s and is opposed to globalism. Farage presents a modern form of right wing capitalism in one nation that embraces globalism and free trade, as long as it’s for traditional style British people. Both politicians put forward ideas of nationalism (as nationalism is not inherently right or left wing) but for different economic reasons. Generally you hear the idea the being right wing is about tradition and believing things are generally the way they are because the good ideas have risen to the top and the idea of being left wing is about change and believing things are the way they are because the certain forces have made them so and not always for the better. But I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is atm - we’re between “ages” and the changeover from the goods based industrialised economy to the service and data based post-industrialised economy. But in the same way that the advent of the printing press caused massive, unimaginable upheaval in the Middle Ages, the same is true of the internet. It’s what’s caused globalisation and globalism way more than anything else and that muddies the water a lot as people often use 20tb century labels to describe 21st century political ideals. For most of the 20th century in industrialised societies we measured left and right economically - the left believed in socialism (which in practice meant state intervention in the economy and public ownership of utilities, factories, economies, mines, resources, public transport etc.) and the right believed in free market capitalism (which in practice meant limited state intervention in the economy, private ownership of utilities, mines; factories, healthcare, public transport etc.). But now we live in post-industrial economies in the west where factories and mines aren’t really a major thing and the majority of jobs are service based - and well, you can’t really decide who owns a service. So it’s moved onto things like workers rights Global policy is different and immigration and EU membership for example have been 2 major issues in the uk over the years and if you were thinking about 20th century economic ideals you’d probably expect to the Tories to be very pro-eu and pro- immigration and in fact a lot of the old school Tories who got culled after the referendum like Ken Clarke for example were from that school, many argue that this is actually where New Labour sit too and why many considered Tony Blair right wing despite him enacting many progressive policies. But it seems now many on the right instead have shifted against this. So probably a long winded post saying it’s because policy tends to be not inherently left or right wing but is generally supported by one side for different reasons. This changes over time but as society changes we kind of mix up these labels from believe systems amongst different generations and because of the monumental shifts of globalisation, the internet and the shift from a goods based industrial economy to a service and data based post-industrial economy in just a few decades the shift in between these generations has been so huge. Galloway is a great example of a person who is considered left wing because he follows quite an old school version of what being left wing meant 50 years ago but I can understand why younger people listen to him who consider themselves left wing find it strange to be labelled the same way as him. Would be the same as the way Farage and Rory Stewart are often both considered right wing despite having fundamentally different underlying beliefs and that Stewart would probably consider himself politically much closer to Kier Starmer or Tony Blair than Kier Starmer or Tony Blair would to George Galloway:

I think these topics are interesting but of course I’d argue that Thatcher successfully pushed the centre in British politics so far to the right that we talk about an economic liberal party like the LibDems as being the country’s centrist party when they’d be considered a right wing moderate party in the vast majority of countries.

Not really absurd. Again, you’re confusing the debate about the choice of an individual about aborting a fetus in the abortion debate and the choice of the state to end the life of a functioning, mentally sound (assuming that no one is genuinely going to argue for the death penalty to be introduced against people with mental illnesses in 2024 but then I wouldn’t be surprised) adult in the death penalty debate. You’re also ignoring a huge part of the debate which is at what point a fetus has reached the stage of “life”.

I think you’re a bit confused here. You describe “economic protectionism” and then describe the absolute opposite of protectionism and describe the economic liberalism of free market, low taxes and free trade economics. Protectionism by definition means protecting and closing the economy and setting up barriers and beurocracy to new businesses and outside influences. You also then describe the liberalism of “the lack of red tape” and “nanny state” while we’re taking about parties who want to implement severely anti-immigration policy. Shouldn’t the kind of right wing party you describe be extremely pro-immigration and pro the personal liberty of being able to move country without having to go through border controls or apply and sit in visa queues for years on end? Shouldn’t they be pro-asylum seekers and refugees just coming to the country without having to go through border checks or visa applications? And if the answer to that is “well yes, but the laws of the free markets only applies to Brits or people of similar cultures in other Anglosphere and Western European countries not other people of very different cultures” well then yes, that’s nationalism.

Tories getting Canada 1993’d

I don’t know. When you hear a hit as big as “anti hero” the lyrics are clearly addressing internal monologues and mental health issues in a way standard pop songs don’t. I do get it, I do think when you compare her to other mega pop stars like Michael Jackson, Beyoncé, Drake, Rihanna, Madonna etc. I do think her lyrics stand out and I can totally see why the appeal to younger women especially in a way few other pop stars do. I don’t think she has the melodies or inherently memorable hooks of ABBA or someone, but I do think her lyrics stand out significantly above other of the mega pop stars and she does seem way more down to earth and relatable than all those other people I listed.

Sunak definitely just doesn’t give a **** anymore and wants it done so he can swan off to California. He’ll be hiding in a fridge next

I do understand the point of view and hope you’re right that Labour will drift leftwards over the years after they have power, however I’m cynical. I’m very interested in Labour’s manifesto next week, as a couple of years ago Starmer was public about rejoining the single market, giving eu citizens who are long term residents in the uk future votes and wanting higher minimum wage and take water and energy firms under public control, but has taken them from his website. How much of that is them realising just how bankrupt the country is and the hope that these are more goals for the next election I’m not sure. It does give the depressing feeling that Labour have drifted over to the right and just become another moderate centre right party though.

Exactly. They culled all the moderates and competent people after the Brexit referendum and so only the dross remains. Canada 1993 is a genuine possibility where the party loss is so humiliating they never get power again and eventually disband

This was the best answer of the night for me

Agreed. But he was also the only one who was prepared to address the massive elephant that’s trumpeting in the room that is Brexit while all the other parties continue to pretend it’s the just the buzzing of the (empty) fridge in the kitchen.

What about in grebland?

This debate chair is infinitely better than the last one at least. Not constantly talking over them

You can tell he just doesn’t care anymore. It’s clear he just wants to lose and get it done with so he can **** off to California and do bullingdon shit with his mega finance mates and the billions he married into. Reminds me of that spell where Rodgers started slating the fans and it felt like he was trying to get sacked so he could get his payout.

Nope, they’re in favour of much more brutal immigration laws than that. They made it very clear in their interview on itv the other day - they are in favour of immigration freezes for several years for all types of immigration with only exceptions for health and care workers and they are also in favour net zero immigration, which requires you to control everyone moving to the country including British and Irish citizens who currently always have the right to move back or move for the first time to the UK and many people who are non British or Irish citizens who have the right to move back to the uk either indefinitely or several years after moving away depending on the law/treaty, many of these as well are based on laws under international treaties with for example other eu and commonwealth countries. This can only be achieved in practice by creation a North Korea style pariah state, scrapping the CTA,l and the Good Friday Agreement, revoking British citizenships of any British citizen who moves abroad and ignoring international treaties with the eu and commonwealth countries as well as decades old British law like windrush.

Tory advisors this morning when the news of Sunak’s gaffe was breaking:

He’s not wrong

How dumb can the Tories be? Has anyone checked for irregular betting patterns for Tories to get under 20 seats? I’d swear they were trying to throw this election.

He’s like a broken ai chatbot that doesn’t understand your query so feeds out unrelated off-programmed gibberish over and over

Yeh that’s true, but as you said, it cuts deep into his own voter base which I think is a key thing here.

Bizarre. Given Biden is also in the lead up a general election and Macron is the middle of EU elections and neither had any problems turning up. Embarrassing himself and deserting his duties of statehood in front of 2 of our closest allies and 2 of 3 world leaders he has to work closest with along with the chancellor of Germany. It’s just not understanding the duties of being a prime minister, simple as that. You can’t make “mistakes” like that as prime minister, it’s something you get out your system as a junior minister, but sacking off an event commemorating the 80th anniversary of D-day with both the French and US presidents is just wow. And for what? An ITV interview that doesn’t even air for days and could easily have just been done today instead. Genuinely struggling to think of a worse gaffe in an election campaign from a standing pm.