Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

As others have mentioned, the whole Tommy Robinson development has become an utter shambles.

 

To give the hardcore nationalists this kind of open goal (especially at exactly the time the ones in the US are ready to offer them support and there's important discussions on immigration etc to have) is practically unforgivable.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Will the judge be prosecuted for contempt of court for not giving him a fair trial?

What?! 

 

Read this:

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

 

 

A brutally honest view from someone in the legal profession about this whole sorry mess.

[urban.spaceman]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

What?! 

 

Read this:

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

 

 

A brutally honest view from someone in the legal profession about this whole sorry mess.

Tongue was quite firmly in cheek with that post... 

[Guest MattP]

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

*sighs*

 

 

Edited 1 August 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Guest MattP]

Corbyn praised the release of Hamas terrorists and called them his brothers.

 

Between them convicted of the murder of 600 Israelis. 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-praised-release-of-hamas-terrorists-hh90cctgp

[Claridge]

3 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

What?! 

 

Read this:

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

 

 

A brutally honest view from someone in the legal profession about this whole sorry mess.

Brutally honest?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 hours ago, MattP said:

Corbyn praised the release of Hamas terrorists and called them his brothers.

 

Between them convicted of the murder of 600 Israelis. 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-praised-release-of-hamas-terrorists-hh90cctgp

This idiot really needs to quit. It is unacceptable for a leader of a major political party to make dangerous rants like this.

 

I can not see how he can hold this position any longer. 

[Izzy]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

This idiot really needs to quit. It is unacceptable for a leader of a major political party to make dangerous rants like this.

 

I can not see how he can hold this position any longer. 

I think there's a lot of voters in this country (like me) who aren't overly fussed about party policy but tend to decide based on the leader of the party and their leadership qualities/trustworthiness etc. I reckon lots of people's vote in the UK is decided like a US presidential race.

 

I know TM is weak and unpopular but I just can't see those that are 'undecided' voting for Labour under Corbyn. He might be popular with the younger voters but I don't think 'the masses' would trust him to lead the country.

 

If Labour really want to win the next election I think they need a younger, more dynamic leader who hasn't got any baggage.

[Guest MattP]

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I think there's a lot of voters in this country (like me) who aren't overly fussed about party policy but tend to decide based on the leader of the party and their leadership qualities/trustworthiness etc. I reckon lots of people's vote in the UK is decided like a US presidential race.

 

I know TM is weak and unpopular but I just can't see those that are 'undecided' voting for Labour under Corbyn. He might be popular with the younger voters but I don't think 'the masses' would trust him to lead the country.

 

If Labour really want to win the next election I think they need a younger, more dynamic leader who hasn't got any baggage.

I think it is true. Labour have a massive chance of a landslide without this incompetent bumbling idiot in charge. I honestly can not see what the appeal is with the man. He is old labour, a vile, hateful, mouth frothing Trotskyite who should be confined to 1979. I cant believe such a man is a leader of a major opposition party in 2018.

 

 

 

I would probably be more closely aligned to voting Labour if they had a decent more dynamic/intelligent leader along the lines IMO of Benn, Stammer, Chukka. I think it would be suitable for Labour to have a female leader also, but I am not yet sure if any of them are ready yet. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

19 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

Saw this report on Newsnight. Vaz sounds an utter disgrace - much worse than I'd imagined from previous rumours (I'm more inclined to laugh about politicians involved in sex scandals etc.).

 

In the report, he came across as a horrible, arrogant bully - and a disgraceful sexist with his comments disparaging her performance (others thought highly of her) and allegedly blaming it on her not having any children. And it wasn't just relying on the word of one (very credible) witness. Her stories were backed up by colleagues and official reports.

 

Not only that, the stories about unexplained payments and possible inappropriate influence were alarming. She told of foreign trips where "his" Commons committee would get lavish meals and so on, which were not paid for by the Committee (it was normally the Clerk's job to do that) or by individual MPs....all inexplicably funded by friends and business colleagues of Mr. Vaz, whom the MPs on the committee would meet on these "official" trips. The report didn't substantiate any definite gain that Vaz's mates got by these lavish gifts to the committee, but highly dubious even so.

 

There seem to be a few MPs on all sides like that (a minority), but Vaz certainly seems to be one of the worst offenders. Bloke needs kicking out by party or voters, frankly. I certainly wouldn't vote for him if I was in Leicester East, not South.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I think there's a lot of voters in this country (like me) who aren't overly fussed about party policy but tend to decide based on the leader of the party and their leadership qualities/trustworthiness etc. I reckon lots of people's vote in the UK is decided like a US presidential race.

 

I know TM is weak and unpopular but I just can't see those that are 'undecided' voting for Labour under Corbyn. He might be popular with the younger voters but I don't think 'the masses' would trust him to lead the country.

 

If Labour really want to win the next election I think they need a younger, more dynamic leader who hasn't got any baggage.

 

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think it is true. Labour have a massive chance of a landslide without this incompetent bumbling idiot in charge. I honestly can not see what the appeal is with the man. He is old labour, a vile, hateful, mouth frothing Trotskyite who should be confined to 1979. I cant believe such a man is a leader of a major opposition party in 2018.

 

I would probably be more closely aligned to voting Labour if they had a decent more dynamic/intelligent leader along the lines IMO of Benn, Stammer, Chukka. I think it would be suitable for Labour to have a female leader also, but I am not yet sure if any of them are ready yet. 

 

 

 

Because of our election system, it's becoming distinctly possible that Labour could win a majority or even a landslide with Corbyn in charge - even without winning over any more voters.

 

Recent polls suggested some shift of votes from the Tories to UKIP. If May makes a lot of compromises to get a Brexit deal or if we end up with a chaotic No Deal Brexit, even more votes could shift from the Tories to UKIP or the Far Right.

There could also be some Tory voters disillusioned with the Brexit outcome and/or May who stay at home on election day - while Labour's big grassroots membership (Momentum etc.) get the Labour vote out.

 

It could easily be a mirror image of 1983, when the Tory vote went down on 1979 to about 40%, but Thatcher increased her majority from about 40 to 144, due in part to Labour voters switching to the SDP or staying at home.

Like the SDP, UKIP would probably get few, if any seats. Their main impact, due to first past the post, would be to hand Tory seats to Labour (or Lib Dems/SNP in some cases).

 

Corbyn could easily carry on as he is, win over no more voters - and still win a majority or landslide. To be fair, the Tories will be aware of this and it's a reason that an early election might be unlikely.

Edited 2 August 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Because of our election system, it's becoming distinctly possible that Labour could win a majority or even a landslide with Corbyn in charge - even without winning over any more voters.

 

Recent polls suggested some shift of votes from the Tories to UKIP. If May makes a lot of compromises to get a Brexit deal or if we end up with a chaotic No Deal Brexit, even more votes could shift from the Tories to UKIP or the Far Right.

There could also be some Tory voters disillusioned with the Brexit outcome and/or May who stay at home on election day - while Labour's big grassroots membership (Momentum etc.) get the Labour vote out.

 

It could easily be a mirror image of 1983, when the Tory vote went down on 1979 to about 40%, but Thatcher increased her majority from about 40 to 144, due in part to Labour voters switching to the SDP or staying at home.

Like the SDP, UKIP would probably get few, if any seats. Their main impact, due to first past the post, would be to hand Tory seats to Labour (or Lib Dems/SNP in some cases).

 

Corbyn could easily carry on as he is, win over no more voters - and still win a majority or landslide. To be fair, the Tories will be aware of this and it's a reason that an early election might be unlikely.

 

I can understand the shift from Tory to UKIP given that the Tories appear to be letting down those who voted Brexit.

 

What I struggle to understand is how Labour can obtain any vote in Midlands and Northern towns which voted leave, surely in these areas there has to be some switch away from Labour to alternatives also?

 

Oddly most of the young seem to fall for uncle Jezzas bollocks, yet they are pro EU and he is about as anti EU as you can get, when will people see through him? The man is an utter disgrace, in no way is he fit to run a 1st world major economy.  

Edited 2 August 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I can understand the shift from Tory to UKIP given that the Tories appear to be letting down those who voted Brexit.

 

What I struggle to understand is how Labour can obtain any vote in Midlands and Northern towns which voted leave, surely in these areas there has to be some switch away from Labour to alternatives also?

 

Oddly most of the young seem to fall for uncle Jezzas bollocks, yet they are pro EU and he is about as anti EU as you can get, when will people see through him? The man is an utter disgrace, in no way is he fit to run a 1st world major economy.  

 

 

I see your logic over the Labour vote in pro-Brexit parts of the Midlands/North. Maybe they're less inclined to switch as it's logical for the Tories to mainly be blamed for "letting Brexit voters down" as they're the ones in power.

Alternatively, maybe Labour IS losing votes to UKIP in those areas, but picking up extra votes from the slight shift towards Remain. Like last time, Labour could end up losing seats in struggling Northern/Midlands towns, but winning a lot more in the SE, Scotland and major cities? The Lab vote seems to be stagnant nationally, but that could conceal regional variations and I've not seen any regional polls. The net shift nationally seems to be Con->UKIP with Lab standing still....dangerous for the Tories if that continues, though a lot could change in coming months.

 

The Labour trick of staying slightly more Soft Brexit than the Tories to keep Remain and Leave-voting Labour voters loyal has worked well so far. Depending on what happens in negotiations, parliament and public opinion, they might have to get off the fence soon, though. But that could involve calling for a 2nd referendum, an election or a Norway-style Brexit, not necessarily going the whole hog and calling for Remain.....though they'd face a dilemma if there was a 2nd referendum. But for now the ball is still in the Tories' court. Logically, Labour will shift further towards Remain as this is the position of about 70% of their voters, 90%+ of their MPs and 95%+ of their members - Uncle Jezza might just need a bit of arm-twisting.

 

I'm not a massive Corbyn fan, but don't feel as strongly as you do. I think you're overstating his Euroscepticism, though. If he has to moderate his stance on the EU to retain the opportunity to lead a radical Labour govt, I reckon he'll do so - particularly if he's persuaded that he could actually implement much of his programme (public investment spending, tax & spend, nationalisation etc.) without the EU preventing him. He might need to shift his EU stance just to keep the youth vote, though. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

39 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

The Labour trick of staying slightly more Soft Brexit than the Tories to keep Remain and Leave-voting Labour voters loyal has worked well so far. Depending on what happens in negotiations, parliament and public opinion, they might have to get off the fence soon, though. But that could involve calling for a 2nd referendum, an election or a Norway-style Brexit, not necessarily going the whole hog and calling for Remain.....though they'd face a dilemma if there was a 2nd referendum. But for now the ball is still in the Tories' court. Logically, Labour will shift further towards Remain as this is the position of about 70% of their voters, 90%+ of their MPs and 95%+ of their members - Uncle Jezza might just need a bit of arm-twisting.

 

Is it really a more soft Brexit than the Tories? To me it seems broadly the same a kind of customer union proposed that isn't the actual customs union, and restricted freedom of movement.

 

I personally don't agree with either deal/plan I suppose they could be worse but the EU are highly unlikely no to accept either of them. 

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Is it really a more soft Brexit than the Tories? To me it seems broadly the same a kind of customer union proposed that isn't the actual customs union, and restricted freedom of movement.

 

I personally don't agree with either deal/plan I suppose they could be worse but the EU are highly unlikely no to accept either of them. 

 

Certainly, they're both versions of "have cake and eat it" - and neither are likely to be fully accepted by the EU....the difference being that only the Tories will be exposed, unless the govt falls, as Labour are not in govt.

May's position has softened and moved onto Labour terrain - but she'll struggle to get that past her own party, particularly as the EU will want more concessions.

 

There's still a difference in focus: the Tories are focused on the "national control" agenda, hostility to any involvement with ECJ & EU institutions and immigration. That's what most of their members and voters want. Labour also have to do something about immigration concerns or they'll lose votes, but are less bothered about the "national control" agenda and happier to maintain a close economic and political relationship with the EU (while respecting the referendum vote, unless public opinion shifts markedly). Corbyn would welcome greater freedom from EU control over state intervention in the economy, but it's less of a visceral issue for Labour, I think....and he'd surely be forced to compromise on that if most of his members, voters and MPs want him to. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Certainly, they're both versions of "have cake and eat it" - and neither are likely to be fully accepted by the EU....the difference being that only the Tories will be exposed, unless the govt falls, as Labour are not in govt.

May's position has softened and moved onto Labour terrain - but she'll struggle to get that past her own party, particularly as the EU will want more concessions.

 

There's still a difference in focus: the Tories are focused on the "national control" agenda, hostility to any involvement with ECJ & EU institutions and immigration. That's what most of their members and voters want. Labour also have to do something about immigration concerns or they'll lose votes, but are less bothered about the "national control" agenda and happier to maintain a close economic and political relationship with the EU (while respecting the referendum vote, unless public opinion shifts markedly). Corbyn would welcome greater freedom from EU control over state intervention in the economy, but it's less of a visceral issue for Labour, I think....and he'd surely be forced to compromise on that if most of his members, voters and MPs want him to. 

1

This is something I asked a question about a couple of days back. I am still curious as to whether people think there's much difference in the policy of Labour and the Tories towards the social aspect of Brexit and what it might be.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

This is something I asked a question about a couple of days back. I am still curious as to whether people think there's much difference in the policy of Labour and the Tories towards the social aspect of Brexit and what it might be.

 

Answering a slightly different question, there is always a distinction between the sort of social policies that Labour and the Tories want to introduce. The instinct of the Tories is to cut tax, cut public spending and accept lower social standards in exchange for individuals keeping more of their own money ("encouraging responsibility/initiative" etc.). The instinct of Labour is to increase tax (particularly on corporations & the wealthy), to increase public spending/investment and to seek higher social standards in exchange for individuals keeping less of their own money. 

 

That distinction becomes a massive gulf when Labour has its most left-wing leadership for decades and when the ultra-Thatcherite Right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory Party. That gulf would be further widened by the impact of any sort of Hard Brexit. At least in the short to medium-term, there would be near-irresistible pressure for a UK Tory Govt to cut corporate taxation and social standards in order to compete in EU markets, to do global trade deals while in a state of desperation and to attract inward investment without the attraction of being part of the single market. Some Tories would go along with such policies as an economic necessity, regretting the social harm done. Others would absolutely love it as it's what they believe in - the beneficial absolute freedom of capital and entrepreneurs, cutting the state, tax and social spending to the minimum, then blaming the unsuccessful and those without capital for their failure to succeed in life. Particularly under Corbyn, Labour would actively resist that sort of "race to the bottom" .....but might end up wrecking the economy as a result.

 

Returning to your question about the social aspect of Brexit.....

I think Labour is quite happy with most EU social policy and would actively like to maintain EU legislation on employment, environment, working conditions etc. Some Tories say the same. Some of those Tories mean it, others do not, but there would be an inevitable, near-magnetic pull for them to cut social standards over the coming years (maybe not immediately), some of them for pragmatic economic reasons, others for ideological reasons.

 

But the whole "taking back control" agenda on the Right is much more visceral - and that includes stopping "Brussels rules and red tape limiting our freedom". Where Corbyn shares a bit of the "taking back control" agenda is on economic policy (particularly the terms of EMU and competition/state intervention policy), not social policy - he wants more power to intervene in the economy without EU restraint, if anything to go further than the EU on social policy. Labour now knows that it needs to do something to address concerns about immigration among its core vote - whether that is by limiting freedom of movement and/or by domestic legislation to improve job security, limit the use of cheap foreign labour etc. Otherwise, Labour is not unhappy with EU social policy, I think, whereas most Tories (members/voters to a greater extent than MPs, so far) hate it as "control by Brussels".

 

A roundabout response to your question....

[l444ry]

An interesting discussion. Brexiteers beware that it contains experts.

.

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Answering a slightly different question, there is always a distinction between the sort of social policies that Labour and the Tories want to introduce. The instinct of the Tories is to cut tax, cut public spending and accept lower social standards in exchange for individuals keeping more of their own money ("encouraging responsibility/initiative" etc.). The instinct of Labour is to increase tax (particularly on corporations & the wealthy), to increase public spending/investment and to seek higher social standards in exchange for individuals keeping less of their own money. 

 

That distinction becomes a massive gulf when Labour has its most left-wing leadership for decades and when the ultra-Thatcherite Right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory Party. That gulf would be further widened by the impact of any sort of Hard Brexit. At least in the short to medium-term, there would be near-irresistible pressure for a UK Tory Govt to cut corporate taxation and social standards in order to compete in EU markets, to do global trade deals while in a state of desperation and to attract inward investment without the attraction of being part of the single market. Some Tories would go along with such policies as an economic necessity, regretting the social harm done. Others would absolutely love it as it's what they believe in - the beneficial absolute freedom of capital and entrepreneurs, cutting the state, tax and social spending to the minimum, then blaming the unsuccessful and those without capital for their failure to succeed in life. Particularly under Corbyn, Labour would actively resist that sort of "race to the bottom" .....but might end up wrecking the economy as a result.

 

Returning to your question about the social aspect of Brexit.....

I think Labour is quite happy with most EU social policy and would actively like to maintain EU legislation on employment, environment, working conditions etc. Some Tories say the same. Some of those Tories mean it, others do not, but there would be an inevitable, near-magnetic pull for them to cut social standards over the coming years (maybe not immediately), some of them for pragmatic economic reasons, others for ideological reasons.

 

But the whole "taking back control" agenda on the Right is much more visceral - and that includes stopping "Brussels rules and red tape limiting our freedom". Where Corbyn shares a bit of the "taking back control" agenda is on economic policy (particularly the terms of EMU and competition/state intervention policy), not social policy - he wants more power to intervene in the economy without EU restraint, if anything to go further than the EU on social policy. Labour now knows that it needs to do something to address concerns about immigration among its core vote - whether that is by limiting freedom of movement and/or by domestic legislation to improve job security, limit the use of cheap foreign labour etc. Otherwise, Labour is not unhappy with EU social policy, I think, whereas most Tories (members/voters to a greater extent than MPs, so far) hate it as "control by Brussels".

 

A roundabout response to your question....

 

A small point.  I'm not sure the ultra-Thatcherite right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory party.  Under the Tories, the government is taxing the economy more than at any point in the last 50 years.  If anything, they are morphing into Ed Miliband-lite.

Edited 2 August 2018 by breadandcheese

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

That distinction becomes a massive gulf when Labour has its most left-wing leadership for decades and when the ultra-Thatcherite Right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory Party. That gulf would be further widened by the impact of any sort of Hard Brexit. At least in the short to medium-term, there would be near-irresistible pressure for a UK Tory Govt to cut corporate taxation and social standards in order to compete in EU markets, to do global trade deals while in a state of desperation and to attract inward investment without the attraction of being part of the single market. Some Tories would go along with such policies as an economic necessity, regretting the social harm done. Others would absolutely love it as it's what they believe in - the beneficial absolute freedom of capital and entrepreneurs, cutting the state, tax and social spending to the minimum, then blaming the unsuccessful and those without capital for their failure to succeed in life. Particularly under Corbyn, Labour would actively resist that sort of "race to the bottom" .....but might end up wrecking the economy as a result.

 

 

 

Literally zero idea where you've got that from.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 

A small point.  I'm not sure the ultra-Thatcherite right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory party.  Under the Tories, the government is taxing the economy more than at any point in the last 50 years.  If anything, they are morphing into Ed Miliband-lite.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Literally zero idea where you've got that from.

I wouldn't say that the ultra-Thatcherite right is getting more powerful within the Tory party, but they are getting more powerful amongst the voter base on social issues rather than economic ones. "Free Tommy", anyone?

[breadandcheese]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

I wouldn't say that the ultra-Thatcherite right is getting more powerful within the Tory party, but they are getting more powerful amongst the voter base on social issues rather than economic ones. "Free Tommy", anyone?

It's a ridiculous stretch to describe supporters of Tommy Robinson as Thatcherite.  Far right, yes.  Thatcherite?  No.  

[The Guvnor]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Certainly, they're both versions of "have cake and eat it" - and neither are likely to be fully accepted by the EU....the difference being that only the Tories will be exposed, unless the govt falls, as Labour are not in govt.

May's position has softened and moved onto Labour terrain - but she'll struggle to get that past her own party, particularly as the EU will want more concessions.

 

There's still a difference in focus: the Tories are focused on the "national control" agenda, hostility to any involvement with ECJ & EU institutions and immigration. That's what most of their members and voters want. Labour also have to do something about immigration concerns or they'll lose votes, but are less bothered about the "national control" agenda and happier to maintain a close economic and political relationship with the EU (while respecting the referendum vote, unless public opinion shifts markedly). Corbyn would welcome greater freedom from EU control over state intervention in the economy, but it's less of a visceral issue for Labour, I think....and he'd surely be forced to compromise on that if most of his members, voters and MPs want him to. 

I'd want a fcuking big slice of cake for £39 Billion.