Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Innovindil]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Study on generational inequality proposes gifting 25-year-old’s £10k and raising taxes on pensioners.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

 

The bit towards the end is most interesting, making more wealthy people pay privately for medical care. That makes me uneasy because we know “wealth” in this sort of context is never aimed at the truly wealthy, but like higher rate tax is aimed at people who are just doing slightly better than average. 

 

Generational inequality is an issue but we should be looking at the reasons why the country isn’t working as well as it could, why productively is so poor, why wages are so poor and so on, instead of just looking at brash arbitrary redistribution measures that will punish people who have worked hard and saved diligently for their futures.

 

Also, and maybe slightly more controversially, let’s have an open conversation about how much life-extending healthcare we actually want, and whether be kept alive for some years at the very end of our lives is really worth the expense.

 

Covered lightly on this topic before and it's definitely a conversation that needs having, but it won't happen for a long time.

 

I don't care if people want to live as long as possible, let them, give them all the medical treatment they believe they need. But let the people that want to cash out cash out. It's truly baffling how we're given the right to create life as we see fit, but not allowed to control our own ends. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Interesting. Not quite sure how we could ever prove it's 100% safe if we never tried it. Would you support trials before introducing into the mainstream food chain, a bit like medical trials before medication is released? Or do we just write off potential advancement because of an unknown? 

I'm unsure of the need for them.

The greatest argument for them involves the third world or potential droughts etc caused by climate change.

 

There is an argument to say we could feed the third world but I'm unconvinced of the ethical argument for testing in the real world. True testing would have to take place over 20-30 years with a huge population so essentially 'testing' would just be using them and looking at changes in disease rates (a bit like with mobile phones).

 

I'm not sure what the the word 'advancement' is for in this context. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

 

Also, and maybe slightly more controversially, let’s have an open conversation about how much life-extending healthcare we actually want, and whether being kept alive for some years at the very end of our lives is really worth the expense.

 

 

Think maybe its messing with nature too much. We have a life span, our bodies wear out. Yes we can keep people alive at huge cost, but in many ways it is hugely problematic in terms of not just the cost for medical care but the cost this has on the lives of others. If everyone stays alive for an unlimited time we are going to have huge problems, feeding, housing, all over crowded infrastructure becoming more crowded. 

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's absolutely not the government making a complete and utter mess of Brexit....

 

Boris Johnson attacks Theresa May's 'crazy' customs plan

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/08/boris-johnson-attacks-theresa-mays-crazy-customs-plan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

One way or another, it seems this is going to come to a head soon. May won't be able to sit on the fence much longer. So, unless one side or the other backs down, a big internal Tory bust-up looks likely.

 

It's all a bit strange as the EU has shown no sign that it will agree to either solution in negotiations - unless there's something we're not being told. Does May think she can persuade them into her customs arrangement?

I assume the Hard Brexit crew don't care whether the EU accept their "maximum facilitation" idea. They'll be quite happy if we end up going off the cliff next March and "taking control" of the smoking ruins.

 

Quite what Parliament will allow through is another issue. This is all becoming like a poker game within the Tory party, based on crazed ideology, cynical manipulation of opinion, power and egos - with all our futures being gambled as chips on the table. 

 

It's ironic that the resignation of Rudd, a Remainer, over the incompetent implementation of a right-wing immigration policy, has shifted the cabinet balance towards Hard Brexit, with Javid supporting Gove, Boris & co.

 

There'll be fireworks well before Bonfire Night. Not sure exactly who'll get burnt, but mainly on this side of the Channel and might include all of us, unless Parliament "takes back control" from the Executive and halts the madness.

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm unsure of the need for them.

The greatest argument for them involves the third world or potential droughts etc caused by climate change.

 

There is an argument to say we could feed the third world but I'm unconvinced of the ethical argument for testing in the real world. True testing would have to take place over 20-30 years with a huge population so essentially 'testing' would just be using them and looking at changes in disease rates (a bit like with mobile phones).

 

I'm not sure what the the word 'advancement' is for in this context. 

Advancement is the ability to adapt to the future. If genetically modifying crops can produce better yields, better nutritional values and use less pesticides isn't it something worth investigating? The UK trades for its food right now, but long term, wouldn't it be better if we could make British farming viable again without payments to help keep them afloat?

 

I see too many benefits to be held back by a what if, at a minimum we should be researching viability. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Advancement is the ability to adapt to the future. If genetically modifying crops can produce better yields, better nutritional values and use less pesticides isn't it something worth investigating? The UK trades for its food right now, but long term, wouldn't it be better if we could make British farming viable again without payments to help keep them afloat?

 

I see too many benefits to be held back by a what if, at a minimum we should be researching viability. 

My issue is that the research would be worthless as safety can't be assessed properly until they're in use for a significant span of time across a huge population. Essentially, putting them into use.

 

The difference between gm crops and other things is that GM crops will become wild as soon as they are introduced into the ecosystem - if negative effects are going it'll be too late to do anything about it.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

One way or another, it seems this is going to come to a head soon. May won't be able to sit on the fence much longer. So, unless one side or the other backs down, a big internal Tory bust-up looks likely.

 

It's all a bit strange as the EU has shown no sign that it will agree to either solution in negotiations - unless there's something we're not being told. Does May think she can persuade them into her customs arrangement?

I assume the Hard Brexit crew don't care whether the EU accept their "maximum facilitation" idea. They'll be quite happy if we end up going off the cliff next March and "taking control" of the smoking ruins.

 

Quite what Parliament will allow through is another issue. This is all becoming like a poker game within the Tory party, based on crazed ideology, cynical manipulation of opinion, power and egos - with all our futures being gambled as chips on the table. 

 

It's ironic that the resignation of Rudd, a Remainer, over the incompetent implementation of a right-wing immigration policy, has shifted the cabinet balance towards Hard Brexit, with Javid supporting Gove, Boris & co.

 

There'll be fireworks well before Bonfire Night. Not sure exactly who'll get burnt, but mainly on this side of the Channel and might include all of us, unless Parliament "takes back control" from the Executive and halts the madness.

The only option will be for parliament to rein in the hard Brexiters when may fails to do so. 

 

Anna soubry had it right on this week a couple of months navy when she said that she thinks may believes she can hold the party together but the hard Brexiters will stop at nothing to get their way. 

 

If our Mps have anything about them they'll keep the lords amendments and force the government to stay in the customs union. 

 

If they don't, it'll be the end of the tory party once the public see the paucity of Liam Fox's efforts to build trade deals and what we have to give up to get them over the line.

 

A hard Brexit will keep the remainers arguments going and see a second referendum within a decade imo.

Edited 8 May 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

One way or another, it seems this is going to come to a head soon. May won't be able to sit on the fence much longer. So, unless one side or the other backs down, a big internal Tory bust-up looks likely.

 

It's all a bit strange as the EU has shown no sign that it will agree to either solution in negotiations - unless there's something we're not being told. Does May think she can persuade them into her customs arrangement?

I assume the Hard Brexit crew don't care whether the EU accept their "maximum facilitation" idea. They'll be quite happy if we end up going off the cliff next March and "taking control" of the smoking ruins.

 

Quite what Parliament will allow through is another issue. This is all becoming like a poker game within the Tory party, based on crazed ideology, cynical manipulation of opinion, power and egos - with all our futures being gambled as chips on the table. 

 

It's ironic that the resignation of Rudd, a Remainer, over the incompetent implementation of a right-wing immigration policy, has shifted the cabinet balance towards Hard Brexit, with Javid supporting Gove, Boris & co.

 

There'll be fireworks well before Bonfire Night. Not sure exactly who'll get burnt, but mainly on this side of the Channel and might include all of us, unless Parliament "takes back control" from the Executive and halts the madness.

I presume the 'customs arrangement' is similar to 'a' customs union. I would personally be very surprised if the EU went for either of them which is why I find the Labour bluster on this a bit of a joke. If they said they were going to remain in the single market fine, but 'a' customs unions is exactly the same 'medium soft' Brexit half the Tory party are going for. 

 

I really think an election is the best way to solve this now, assuming the parties are able to credibly lay out their stance. Tories - Hard Brexit, Labour - Floppy Brexit, Lib Dems - No Brexit. 

 

With the current set up there is no way Parliament or the Lords will approve any Hard Brexit, this is why the parties need to agree and get at least a parliamentary majority. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I presume the 'customs arrangement' is similar to 'a' customs union. I would personally be very surprised if the EU went for either of them which is why I find the Labour bluster on this a bit of a joke. If they said they were going to remain in the single market fine, but 'a' customs unions is exactly the same 'medium soft' Brexit half the Tory party are going for. 

 

I really think an election is the best way to solve this now, assuming the parties are able to credibly lay out their stance. Tories - Hard Brexit, Labour - Floppy Brexit, Lib Dems - No Brexit. 

 

With the current set up there is no way Parliament or the Lords will approve any Hard Brexit, this is why the parties need to agree and get at least a parliamentary majority. 

We had an election last year and hard Brexit only gained around 45% of the votes (tory+dup+UKIP). Soft or no Brexit got 55%. Why can't you just accept the will of the people?

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My issue is that the research would be worthless as safety can't be assessed properly until they're in use for a significant span of time across a huge population. Essentially, putting them into use.

 

The difference between gm crops and other things is that GM crops will become wild as soon as they are introduced into the ecosystem - if negative effects are going it'll be too late to do anything about it.

I don't get this first bit, why do they have to be tested across a huge population? New medications aren't and new ones of those are released all the time. 

 

If you're worried about gm crops becoming wild, then you genetically tie their tubes (so to speak), there's already a patent in America covering crops that can't reproduce. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We had an election last year and hard Brexit only gained around 45% of the votes (tory+dup+UKIP). Soft or no Brexit got 55%. Why can't you just accept the will of the people?

I do not think that Labour clearly defined themselves in the last election. Corbyn and McDonnell were saying that they wanted out of the single market and custom union very clearly. Labour campaigned on a 'jobs first' Brexit whatever that is? 

 

They still want out of 'the customs union' and want 'a' customs union (Labour Cake). What makes you think the EU are anymore likely to accept their deal? and if they don't which they wont Labour are basically making themselves unelectable in their Northern and Midlands heartlands for decades as these areas were and still are staunch brexiteers.

 

No one has a clear mandate, either way is going to destroy one or both major parties, but maybe that is a good thing. 

Edited 8 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The only option will be for parliament to reign in the hard Brexiters when may fails to do so. 

 

Anna Doubt that it right on this week a couple of months navy when she said that she thinks may believes she can hold the party together but the hard Brexiters will stop at nothing to get their way. 

 

If our Mps have anything about them they'll keep the lords amendments and force the government to stay in the customs union. 

 

If they don't, it'll be the end of the tory party once the public see the paucity of Liam Fox's efforts to build trade deals and what we have to give up to get them over the line.

 

A hard Brexit will keep the remainers arguments going and see a second referendum within a decade imo.

 

I think that I know what you mean and think that I agree.....though sometimes it gets a bit hallucinogenic (see bold bit!). 

 

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I presume the 'customs arrangement' is similar to 'a' customs union. I would personally be very surprised if the EU went for either of them which is why I find the Labour bluster on this a bit of a joke. If they said they were going to remain in the single market fine, but 'a' customs unions is exactly the same 'medium soft' Brexit half the Tory party are going for. 

 

I really think an election is the best way to solve this now, assuming the parties are able to credibly lay out their stance. Tories - Hard Brexit, Labour - Floppy Brexit, Lib Dems - No Brexit. 

 

With the current set up there is no way Parliament or the Lords will approve any Hard Brexit, this is why the parties need to agree and get at least a parliamentary majority. 

 

I think May's "customs arrangement" is a bit different. Seems to involve the UK collecting EU tariffs from third countries on behalf of the EU and passing them on - so as to avoid a hard border (though EU doesn't seem keen so far).

 

I wouldn't be against the idea of another election, but only once it's clear what's on the table. The Tories are the elected govt (with DUP support) and have a mandate to negotiate Brexit. None of us really know what's going to come out of the negotiations, however much we might speculate. By this autumn, it should mainly be clear what the Govt has or hasn't negotiated. The exception is the potential post-Brexit EU/UK trade deal, but even there the divorce & transition deals, if any, will give us an idea of what's in the pipeline - potentially a half-decent deal if divorce, transition, customs & Irish border all sorted; a much more arm's-length, costly relationship if those issues aren't sorted out.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I don't get this first bit, why do they have to be tested across a huge population? New medications aren't and new ones of those are released all the time. 

 

If you're worried about gm crops becoming wild, then you genetically tie their tubes (so to speak), there's already a patent in America covering crops that can't reproduce. 

Medications aren't, no, but they deal with specific ailments and people take the drugs knowing side effects exist because it's better than what they already have. Paracetamol, for example, damages your liver. Each time you take it you are accepting risk is out outweighed by pain.

 

With food, the argument about choice is a false one as it would become used widely in cheap foods everywhere. The poor don't have a choice. Unlike drugs for us eaten multiple times a day, every day, and the outcome of introducing human created foods won't be known for a generation.

 

Why are you so prepared to believe monsato that it's safe?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I do not think that Labour clearly defined themselves in the last election. Corbyn and McDonnell were saying that they wanted out of the single market and custom union very clearly. Labour campaigned on a 'jobs first' Brexit whatever that is? 

 

They still want out of 'the customs union' and want 'a' customs union (Labour Cake). What makes you think the EU are anymore likely to accept their deal? and if they don't which they wont Labour are basically making themselves unelectable in their Northern and Midlands heartlands for decades as these areas were and still are staunch brexiteers.

 

No one has a clear mandate, either way is going to destroy one or both major parties, but maybe that is a good thing. 

 

Just stepping back from another boring Brexit discussion for a moment - why are the north and midlands so pro Brexit compared to the south which sees greater immigration? The answer has to be is domestic policy and the failure of successive governments of all stripes to give equal footing to the regions. Dealing with that is the only way the north and midlands will get a future they want - dumping themselves out of the EU won't solve those problems.

Edited 8 May 2018 by Guest

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Medications aren't, no, but they deal with specific ailments and people take the drugs knowing side effects exist because it's better than what they already have. Paracetamol, for example, damages your liver. Each time you take it you are accepting risk is out outweighed by pain.

 

With food, the argument about choice is a false one as it would become used widely in cheap foods everywhere. The poor don't have a choice. Unlike drugs for us eaten multiple times a day, every day, and the outcome of introducing human created foods won't be known for a generation.

 

Why are you so prepared to believe monsato that it's safe?

I'm not so prepared to believe Monsanto. That is exactly why I am suggesting we, as a nation, look into the potential benefits and negatives surrounding it. 

 

Writing it off simply because it's not understood isn't, or shouldn't, be the world we live in.

 

Too many things have originally been dodgy ideas that turned out to be great to just not bother. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'm not so prepared to believe Monsanto. That is exactly why I am suggesting we, as a nation, look into the potential benefits and negatives surrounding it. 

 

Writing it off simply because it's not understood isn't, or shouldn't, be the world we live in.

 

Too many things have originally been dodgy ideas that turned out to be great to just not bother. 

So then the question is how to have a twenty year test and how do you get a control group to test it? Turning off the ability to reproduce is fair enough but it needs extended testing on humans. I'm not signing up for that. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Just stepping back from another boring Brexit discussion for a moment - why are the north and midlands so pro Brexit compacted to the south which sees greater immigration? The answer to be is domestic policy and the failure of successive governments of all stripes to give equal footing to the regions. Dealing with that is the only way the north and midlands will get a future they want - dumping themselves out of the EU won't solve those problems.

I am not sure that it is purely as simple as that. The North and Midlands as you say have been screwed over by successive governments for years. They want change and are seeing the EU as part of the problem.

 

I think recently there have been immigrant communities moved into Midlands/Northern cities with no jobs and no prospects, they have been given the support the locals are not receiving and this is creating tension. I have to question why governments are doing this but its been happening for some time.

 

The solution is the long running rebalancing that is required of all areas of the economy. Again it seems there is little appetite to make the economy less London centric from any party in my view. 

 

[Innovindil]

23 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So then the question is how to have a twenty year test and how do you get a control group to test it? Turning off the ability to reproduce is fair enough but it needs extended testing on humans. I'm not signing up for that. 

The same way you get people into medical trials, either target the people that need it, or offer financial incentives. 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

One way or another, it seems this is going to come to a head soon. May won't be able to sit on the fence much longer. So, unless one side or the other backs down, a big internal Tory bust-up looks likely.

 

It's all a bit strange as the EU has shown no sign that it will agree to either solution in negotiations - unless there's something we're not being told. Does May think she can persuade them into her customs arrangement?

I assume the Hard Brexit crew don't care whether the EU accept their "maximum facilitation" idea. They'll be quite happy if we end up going off the cliff next March and "taking control" of the smoking ruins.

 

Quite what Parliament will allow through is another issue. This is all becoming like a poker game within the Tory party, based on crazed ideology, cynical manipulation of opinion, power and egos - with all our futures being gambled as chips on the table. 

 

It's ironic that the resignation of Rudd, a Remainer, over the incompetent implementation of a right-wing immigration policy, has shifted the cabinet balance towards Hard Brexit, with Javid supporting Gove, Boris & co.

 

There'll be fireworks well before Bonfire Night. Not sure exactly who'll get burnt, but mainly on this side of the Channel and might include all of us, unless Parliament "takes back control" from the Executive and halts the madness.

Many of us said "be careful what you wish for" regarding Rudd, I was a bit miffed watching the Labour moderates go all out for a scalp on one of the most ardent Remainers in the cabinet - the Tory Brexiteers would have been cheering them on behind closed doors.

 

Those Brexiteers will certainly have been heartened by the results last week (It probably also makes certain Labour won't head towards any policy more pro-EU) - strong performances in Brexit voting areas, vote up 10% in some places and those places are in those seats the next election will probably be decided.

 

Hopefully they'll keep the pressure on the PM - any sort of deal that impacts on our ability to trade independently has to be thrown away but realistically it's going to come down to what they can get through parliament, the Customs Unions vote is going to be so close and the whips will have to make sure they know how every single one of them is voting before they call it.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am not sure that it is purely as simple as that. The North and Midlands as you say have been screwed over by successive governments for years. They want change and are seeing the EU as part of the problem.

 

I think recently there have been immigrant communities moved into Midlands/Northern cities with no jobs and no prospects, they have been given the support the locals are not receiving and this is creating tension. I have to question why governments are doing this but its been happening for some time.

 

The solution is the long running rebalancing that is required of all areas of the economy. Again it seems there is little appetite to make the economy less London centric from any party in my view. 

 

This is the true issue that needs dealing with.

The Tories will have a different sort of problem if they get through a hard Brexit and the north and midlands find that their lot has gotten even worse. Not that I think they'll get a hard Brexit through.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is the true issue that needs dealing with.

The Tories will have a different sort of problem if they get through a hard Brexit and the north and midlands find that their lot has gotten even worse. Not that I think they'll get a hard Brexit through.

 

 

 

 

They do, I think its tough if not impossible to get a hard Brexit to pass parliament at present, which kind of begs the question what is the point.

 

Labour has a massive problem in he Midlands and the North that is they are seen to favour the London Elite views of soft Brexit, they will lose their vote perhaps forever. These people are fiercely loyal working people, their tribal mentality to Labour was once unbreakable but now these people who were born Labour see their party being ran by someone who doesn't represent them. Its a big shift, the local town council where I live has just turned Tory for the first time in about 70 years, completely unthinkable a few years back in a former mining/industrial town. 

 

 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

They do, I think its tough if not impossible to get a hard Brexit to pass parliament at present, which kind of begs the question what is the point.

 

Labour has a massive problem in he Midlands and the North that is they are seen to favour the London Elite views of soft Brexit, they will lose their vote perhaps forever. These people are fiercely loyal working people, their tribal mentality to Labour was once unbreakable but now these people who were born Labour see their party being ran by someone who doesn't represent them. Its a big shift, the local town council where I live has just turned Tory for the first time in about 70 years, completely unthinkable a few years back in a former mining/industrial town. 

 

 

I think its a bit more complicated than that, though I agree the Tories are progressing strongly in those areas.

 

I don't really think its a Corbyn issue. Ironically, he's far more likely to be in tune with the north because of his beliefs around trade union representation, a fair deal for workers, industrial strategy etc than Blair who was actually Northern. Corbyn clearly isn't in league with multi nationals and banks. 

 

I think there are multiple issues at play. Immigration is probably the biggest. Though links in different ways to other issues. 

 

From the 80s onwards seen seen the decline of British industry and the north in general. The Tories were rightly blamed for a long time.

 

Labour coming in during 1997 should have seen renaissance for the north but, although the whole country got much, much richer, there was still no plan. There's still a lack of good jobs in the north.

 

Immigration has been seen as the huge problem causing the issue, even thigh it isn't the cause at all. Whilst it is overall a good thing for the economy, though, what is good for London might not be good for Scarborough. 

 

A lack of investment in new jobs and infrastructure has made mass immigration sit very uncomfortably in the north.

 

Labour during the early '00s are seen as hugely mistaken for their immigration policy - probably rightly. It's the biggest cause of disaffection with labour in the north imo. You often hear people talk about their open door system.

 

It's obvious to see how this links to the Brexit vote. It's the exact set of arguments made by Farage over years. Nobody listened to the north and they voted us out.

 

Labour's problem is two-fold: it is more pro-eu than the Tories and it is more pro-immigration than the Tories. They are the policies currently defining northern politics. 

 

Imo though the real issue underlying all of it - including the immigration debate - is that lack of investment. Ironically, only labour are likely to invest sufficiently to help the north and the rest of their policies would probably sit more comfortably with northerners than the tory ones. But the debate is simply one dimensional atm.

 

 

Edited 8 May 2018 by Guest

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I presume the 'customs arrangement' is similar to 'a' customs union. I would personally be very surprised if the EU went for either of them which is why I find the Labour bluster on this a bit of a joke. If they said they were going to remain in the single market fine, but 'a' customs unions is exactly the same 'medium soft' Brexit half the Tory party are going for. 

 

I really think an election is the best way to solve this now, assuming the parties are able to credibly lay out their stance. Tories - Hard Brexit, Labour - Floppy Brexit, Lib Dems - No Brexit. 

 

With the current set up there is no way Parliament or the Lords will approve any Hard Brexit, this is why the parties need to agree and get at least a parliamentary majority. 

IMO You are making a big mistake in misjudging like many,the real thoughts and opinions through all the Parties.

 

Hard Brexit,was/is/will not, be the stance through all corners of the Tory party ,

Ditto for Labour or Liberal, being boxed,Into ideas of your own making.

We thankfully live in a democracy,and even with issues having famous named whips,

across and within the political abyss,All parties have had major moments where their members,

disagreed totally with their own cabinet,Shadow cabinet,or internal selected leaders.

 

All Chaos ,and dissent stories and rhetoric,are  rife through/across  all the political parties,

the media 'do' decide how the various Attacks on opinions get Singled out and targetted,

also delibrately abusing the ' out of context" deliberations. 

More today than ever before,politics and the bias media representing their own Ideologie,has

become ,for the want of a better word "Tribal"

In this whole Brexit campaign,which was the biggest Question put to this Generation of the modern

Electorate,voters across  all ages ,political ideas,Joe-Bloggs and Business variables delibrately misinterpeted,incompetently,represented and informed.

IMO this should of Been an all party ,joint venture and all arguments listened to and not suppressed,

soley on the grounds of Party loyalty. 

 

There is not one single Party,that has the high-ground,in competence,morally or ideology.

Disdents and individual pros/contras in Every single Party,should have been faced upto.

It was just stupid,relying  singularly on the elected Party of the Moment,because this topic

Split Party loyalties,confused the approach of Ministers and backbenchers,how they should

represent,simply because within their own local electorate,that had within their own Family,and political like thinking, varying ideas of priority, needed and required to the point explanations on major Brexit/remain issues

Information collection honest and a goto group or Plattform,that could offer info and differentiate,

the obvious facts, on the disadvantages/advantages on issues,and then present 'only offered opinion'

consequences on other issues.

 

Whoever who had Been in govt,taking the road we did, ,meant that the Opposition parties,had to

Offer opposing alternatives,accepting it will have enmass contradicting opinions,towards this

Massive Country changing descision.It was put to a referendum,non/nuetral Party led vote,

So IMO an all Party select-commitee,should of Been created,just for the Brexit process,for the

Hows,whys,and therfores.Then in the nearest democratic method,Individual issues would be

decided from within this commitee/panel after being put,to the 'House' and even house of Lords.

No Further referendum,for chosing between presented papers,on grouped together issues.

 

Many Expats,Outside looking in Seen the misinterpritations and lack of forethought,including

Lies based on selfish power grabbing innuenndo,being presented to the electorate.

Obvious basic facts,Were totally ignored,while deep totally irrelevant issues and non-facts,

Were being put to high on the first needed discussions agenda.

 

I could be wrong on the following,but I believe the electorates major reasons and points,

for chosing Brexit,

*Were based on their Individual  ideas on how immigration-organisation,

Were being Handled between Present/last UK govts and EU regulation.

Though if the UK followed basic EU ruling,it wouldnt of become such a media talking point.

* Then all basics forms of regaining full sovereignty.

* Putting business rights back into UK admin-rules only.

* Incorrectly believing Formular and documentation needs for Export/import would be hacked

down to a minimum.

* Falsely believing and being told, many countries would still want to handle with UK no matter what.

That like always will depend on competition and the UK being able to compete to market needs.

* Incorrectly believing automatically that all big foreign businesses just love to have

   their dealings and Presence in the UK.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think its a bit more complicated than that, though I agree the Tories are progressing strongly in those areas.

 

I don't really think its a Corbyn issue. Ironically, he's far more likely to be in tune with the north because of his beliefs around trade union representation, a fair deal for workers, industrial strategy etc than Blair who was actually Northern. Corbyn clearly isn't in league with multi nationals and banks. 

 

I think there are multiple issues at play. Immigration is probably the biggest. Though links in different ways to other issues. 

 

From the 80s onwards seen seen the decline of British industry and the north in general. The Tories were rightly blamed for a long time.

 

Labour coming in during 1997 should have seen renaissance for the north but, although the whole country got much, much richer, there was still no plan. There's still a lack of good jobs in the north.

 

Immigration has been seen as the huge problem causing the issue, even thigh it isn't the cause at all. Whilst it is overall a good thing for the economy, though, what is good for London might not be good for Scarborough. 

 

A lack of investment in new jobs and infrastructure has made mass immigration sit very uncomfortably in the north.

 

Labour during the early '00s are seen as hugely mistaken for their immigration policy - probably rightly. It's the biggest cause of disaffection with labour in the north imo. You often hear people talk about their open door system.

 

It's obvious to see how this links to the Brexit vote. It's the exact set of arguments made by Farage over years. Nobody listened to the north and they voted us out.

 

Labour's problem is two-fold: it is more pro-eu than the Tories and it is more pro-immigration than the Tories. They are the policies currently defining northern politics. 

 

Imo though the real issue underlying all of it - including the immigration debate - is that lack of investment. Ironically, only labour are likely to invest sufficiently to help the north and the rest of their policies would probably sit more comfortably with northerners than the tory ones. But the debate is simply one dimensional atm.

 

 

 

I agree mostly. Many people in the North aren't hearing Corbyn at all, his support of the Unions is kind of irrelevant to them. They are more concerned about some of his approaches to other areas, he is seen as being deeply anti-British here and that is a big problem, again Midlands/Northerners are proud Brits any man seen to be friends with a terrorist is no friend of theirs. He is very supportive of things like 'Refugees welcome' again, this doesn't interest these areas, they believe their local issues need sorting first. He is seen as very much part of the problem, a career politician from an elite background with absolutely no real life experience - it would be so much better for Labour to have a normal working class figure they can relate to, but even the Tories seem to be more likely to choose a PM that is from a normal background. 

 

As well its probably a little unfair when we talk about Thatcher being the one to close all pits and industry. She took the unions to task, I believe at the time quite rightly as they had become to big for their boots but I believe quite a large percentage of pits were closed under Wilson also. They just were not viable anymore, sometimes you have to change and modernise, people do not like it but I think many of the industries had been declining for years anyway due to a number of factors. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am not sure that it is purely as simple as that. The North and Midlands as you say have been screwed over by successive governments for years. They want change and are seeing the EU as part of the problem.

 

I think recently there have been immigrant communities moved into Midlands/Northern cities with no jobs and no prospects, they have been given the support the locals are not receiving and this is creating tension. I have to question why governments are doing this but its been happening for some time.

 

The solution is the long running rebalancing that is required of all areas of the economy. Again it seems there is little appetite to make the economy less London centric from any party in my view. 

 

 

Pretty much agree with your first and third paragraphs.

 

Re. your second paragraph, perceptions of harm done by immigration were certainly a factor. But were they reality or just perceptions of people having a bad time and finding a handy scapegoat? A bit of the former, but mainly the latter, I'd say.

 

Also, there's a tendency to generalise too much about the "North and Midlands". The map below showing Leave areas in blue and Remain areas in yellow is interesting:

- A bit of elementary geographical knowledge will tell you that most of the big Northern/Midlands cities voted Remain, albeit narrowly

- The areas of the North/Midlands that voted strongly for Leave (the majority) were the smaller, less prosperous cities/towns and former industrial areas, along with rural areas

Are we really saying that there has been mass immigration into Nuneaton, Mansfield, Hull and Sunderland, but not into Brum, Manchester and West Yorks??

A bigger correlation of Leave votes to areas facing hard times than to areas with high immigration, I'd say.

 

Ignoring Scotland and N. Ireland, where the vote related more to national sentiment, there's a big correlation to prosperity/poverty in other areas, too:

- In SE, many of the most prosperous, Tory-voting parts of the Home Counties voted Remain (many of them commuters to nice jobs in the City, no doubt)

- But struggling areas like coastal towns and the SW generally voted Leave

  

That map supports your 1st and 3rd paragraph, not so much the idea of direct adverse experience of immigration (apart from a few places like Boston). Many high immigration areas voted Remain - not least London.

To me, that suggests that a lot of struggling, low-immigration areas were more concerned about immigration than high-immigration cities....makes sense, not least as EU immigrants mainly go to places with jobs, more prosperous areas... 

 

 

Edited 8 May 2018 by Alf Bentley