Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Maybe if the two parties concentrated on their bread and butter basic principles instead of meddling in all sorts of other shit, then it would be easier to understand.

Internationalism and anti-colonialism is a major, major part of the left. If you are against British capital stealing the wealth the British working class create then surely its a easy evolution to be against British capital stealing the wealth of the working class in another country? If there is someone who claims to be on the left who doesn’t make that step there’s a word for them; a racist. That’s why we stand against colonial predudice in Ireland, Palestine ect.

[Webbo]

[Guest Markyblue]

7 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Internationalism and anti-colonialism is a major, major part of the left. If you are against British capital stealing the wealth the British working class create then surely its a easy evolution to be against British capital stealing the wealth of the working class in another country? If there is someone who claims to be on the left who doesn’t make that step there’s a word for them; a racist. That’s why we stand against colonial predudice in Ireland, Palestine ect.

What has the left in this country got to do with the working class.  Middle class metropolitan elite yes but working class give a rest.

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Markyblue said:

What has the left in this country got to do with the working class.  Middle class metropolitan elite yes but working class give a rest.

Me trying to make sense of this post

 

 

[Guest Markyblue]

8 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Me trying to make sense of this post

 

 

I've read a lot of your posts and although I very rarely agree with what you say,you seem commited to your views and an intelligent person.  So if you want to believe that the far left have an interest in a working class that are on the whole patriotic, rapidly growing more conservative than the middle classes and a large percentage support brexit then so be it. Of course remembering my favourite leftie tony benn and my least favourite leftie Jeremy both wanted/want out of thr eu. Have a great day.

[Guest MattP]

Swedish General Election today - could be another country that heads to the hard right thanks to insane immigration policy.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Like it or not the world is changing. Fascism is making a come back and this time it's here to stay.

 

There's no way anyone normal can fight it this time it's far reaching into everyone's minds via their mobile phones and popular media rather than from specific countries.

 

The power of big corporations dictating global policy like never before will mean that life for those who support voted for or against these governments will be worse but do many don't care as long they can hate. 

 

Germany, Sweden, Austria, America the UK are all heading to the right but in a nasty way.

 

It's horrible but hate and fear is winning over anything else right now.

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Swedish General Election today - could be another country that heads to the hard right thanks to insane immigration policy.

Immigration policy needs looking at but if we're all for personal responsibility here then the fault of folks bringing in the hard right is that of those who vote for them only.

 

Of course, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

8 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Like it or not the world is changing. Fascism is making a come back and this time it's here to stay.

 

There's no way anyone normal can fight it this time it's far reaching into everyone's minds via their mobile phones and popular media rather than from specific countries.

 

The power of big corporations dictating global policy like never before will mean that life for those who support voted for or against these governments will be worse but do many don't care as long they can hate. 

 

Germany, Sweden, Austria, America the UK are all heading to the right but in a nasty way.

 

It's horrible but hate and fear is winning over anything else right now.

Hypernationalism and fascism have reared their heads before, but yes - it has taken on a different element this time round.

 

I'd like to hope that nationalism doesn't win out again with all the trouble that ends up entailing and that cooler heads prevail in the end, but if not, so be it - let the next smart species have a look at what we did, point, laugh and (hopefully) learn.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Immigration policy needs looking at but if we're all for personal responsibility here then the fault of folks bringing in the hard right is that of those who vote for them only.

If politicians proceed with policies that upset large proportions of the population they take full responsibility for me.

 

Very few ever want to vote for the hard right (or hard left) but sometimes doing that ends up being the only way they'll get listened to.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Truly incredible stuff.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

If politicians proceed with policies that upset large proportions of the population they take full responsibility for me.

 

Very few ever want to vote for the hard right (or hard left) but sometimes doing that ends up being the only way they'll get listened to.

Hmmmm...swings and roundabouts for me.

 

Yes, if people get pissed off enough to go for radical options and that leads to widespread suffering something likely has happened to make them go there but at the same time a democracy means the vote is the vote and everyone who votes should own the consequences of the decisions that they vote for - regardless of the factors that made them vote that way.

Edited 9 September 2018 by leicsmac

[Sharpe's Fox]

27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Truly incredible stuff.

Labour 150 seat majority incoming if this is their programme. They should do it.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Swedish General Election today - could be another country that heads to the hard right thanks to insane immigration policy.

 

It sounds like the Far Right will do well but not win - same as in France, Germany etc.

The forecast is that the Social Democrats will be the largest party, possibly forming a minority govt, with the Far Right second.

But both the Social Democrats and the main centre-right party have said they definitely won't form a coalition with the Far Right.

 

Saw a TV report on crime/immigration in Sweden. The Malmo police chief linked a lot of the violent crime to professional criminals and gangs.

He also said very little of it was committed by migrants. A lot was committed by Swedish-born citizens of immigrant descent from rough estates: i.e. the kids of people who arrived in Sweden several decades ago.....so nothing to do with current "insane immigration policies". People with NF/BNP inclinations could claim that as a reason to oppose all immigration or multiculturalism. Others could connect it to a failure to tackle drug/gang crime - or to institutionalised poverty and lack of opportunities for sections of society in the era of globalisation / advanced capitalism....or link all that to the materialistic expectations of modern society. A large proportion of crime in the UK is also committed by people from such a background, sometimes people of immigrant descent, sometimes people of white working-class descent.

 

I'm not being complacent about the rise of the Far Right. We've already seen the Populist Right, tinged with Far Right ideas, take power in Italy. The fact that the Far Right "only" () gains 25% or 30% of the vote in Sweden, Germany or France and is kept from power by parties of the centre-left or centre-right does not solve the underlying problems.....and that 25%-30% may eventually reach 40% or 50% or whatever if grievances or perceived grievances are not addressed.

 

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If politicians proceed with policies that upset large proportions of the population they take full responsibility for me.

 

Very few ever want to vote for the hard right (or hard left) but sometimes doing that ends up being the only way they'll get listened to.

 

If you had said "if politicians proceed with policies that upset large proportions of the population, they take some responsibility", I'd have agreed with you.

 

The logical corollary of saying they "take full responsibility" is to place all the blame for WW2 and the Holocaust on the Versailles Treaty, the Weimar Republic and/or US politicians who caused the Wall Street Crash.

Does no blame attach to Hitler, the Nazis and those who actively or passively supported them? 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It sounds like the Far Right will do well but not win - same as in France, Germany etc.

The forecast is that the Social Democrats will be the largest party, possibly forming a minority govt, with the Far Right second.

But both the Social Democrats and the main centre-right party have said they definitely won't form a coalition with the Far Right.

 

Saw a TV report on crime/immigration in Sweden. The Malmo police chief linked a lot of the violent crime to professional criminals and gangs.

He also said very little of it was committed by migrants. A lot was committed by Swedish-born citizens of immigrant descent from rough estates: i.e. the kids of people who arrived in Sweden several decades ago.....so nothing to do with current "insane immigration policies". People with NF/BNP inclinations could claim that as a reason to oppose all immigration or multiculturalism. Others could connect it to a failure to tackle drug/gang crime - or to institutionalised poverty and lack of opportunities for sections of society in the era of globalisation / advanced capitalism....or link all that to the materialistic expectations of modern society. A large proportion of crime in the UK is also committed by people from such a background, sometimes people of immigrant descent, sometimes people of white working-class descent.

 

I'm not being complacent about the rise of the Far Right. We've already seen the Populist Right, tinged with Far Right ideas, take power in Italy. The fact that the Far Right "only" () gains 25% or 30% of the vote in Sweden, Germany or France and is kept from power by parties of the centre-left or centre-right does not solve the underlying problems.....and that 25%-30% may eventually reach 40% or 50% or whatever if grievances or perceived grievances are not addressed.

If you had said "if politicians proceed with policies that upset large proportions of the population, they take some responsibility", I'd have agreed with you.

 

The logical corollary of saying they "take full responsibility" is to place all the blame for WW2 and the Holocaust on the Versailles Treaty, the Weimar Republic and/or US politicians who caused the Wall Street Crash.

Does no blame attach to Hitler, the Nazis and those who actively or passively supported them? 

Yeah I'll roll back on that, some not full is fair.

 

Im on mobile at the minute so cant search but haven't the authorities in Sweden already been caught fiddling crime figures? I remember that being one of the reasons for the upsurge of support for the Swedish Democrats.

 

There was quite a big piece in the Spectator a few months ago. I'll try and find it tomorrow.

 

A Swedish TV station ran the report of an investigation that showed over half of convicted rapists were born abroad - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1014911/Swedish-election-2018-immigration-Sweden-Democrats-Jimmie-Akesson

Edited 9 September 2018 by MattP

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmmm...swings and roundabouts for me.

 

Yes, if people get pissed off enough to go for radical options and that leads to widespread suffering something likely has happened to make them go there but at the same time a democracy means the vote is the vote and everyone who votes should own the consequences of the decisions that they vote for - regardless of the factors that made them vote that way.

I don't disagree with what you say but people have tended to vote for the harder line political parties when the mainstream politicians continue to ignore them. 

 

For example, there's always been a disgruntled part of the population that's deeply concerned about immigration. Yeah some people are racist but a lot of them aren't. It's a legitimate concern for many.

 

So to take the UK as an example - people are already concerned about immigration; while Labour was sending everyone of my generation to university at all costs, they created a skills shortage in the mid 2000s. Then they said that only 50k Poles would be coming when they joined. 500K came. Cameron wanted to talk about it in the 2005 election but the discussion was framed as racist. 

Then in 2010 the Labour Prime Minister is caught on mic calling an old woman bigoted because she asked a legitimate question about the scale of uncontrolled immigration. 

Cameron's coalition promised to reduce it to the 10s of thousands. Which was obviously not possible.

 

So more people get more and more disgruntled about not only not being listened to, but also slandered as racist. Then in 2015 - Cameron wins by surprise after promising a referendum, while UKIP get 4 million votes with only one representative in parliament. 

And again in the referendum, they're all smeared as racist. Front line political figures like Diane Abbott says that 17m people may have voted for Brexit because they wanted to see fewer brown faces.

 

If you talk to people like this you will lose them to politicians who say what they want to hear even if they don't share the more extreme aspects of that belief. 

 

This is why Clinton lost in 2016. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I don't disagree with what you say but people have tended to vote for the harder line political parties when the mainstream politicians continue to ignore them. 

 

For example, there's always been a disgruntled part of the population that's deeply concerned about immigration. Yeah some people are racist but a lot of them aren't. It's a legitimate concern for many.

 

So to take the UK as an example - people are already concerned about immigration; while Labour was sending everyone of my generation to university at all costs, they created a skills shortage in the mid 2000s. Then they said that only 50k Poles would be coming when they joined. 500K came. Cameron wanted to talk about it in the 2005 election but the discussion was framed as racist. 

Then in 2010 the Labour Prime Minister is caught on mic calling an old woman bigoted because she asked a legitimate question about the scale of uncontrolled immigration. 

Cameron's coalition promised to reduce it to the 10s of thousands. Which was obviously not possible.

 

So more people get more and more disgruntled about not only not being listened to, but also slandered as racist. Then in 2015 - Cameron wins by surprise after promising a referendum, while UKIP get 4 million votes with only one representative in parliament. 

And again in the referendum, they're all smeared as racist. Front line political figures like Diane Abbott says that 17m people may have voted for Brexit because they wanted to see fewer brown faces.

 

If you talk to people like this you will lose them to politicians who say what they want to hear even if they don't share the more extreme aspects of that belief. 

 

This is why Clinton lost in 2016. 

As you don't disagree with me, I don't disagree with what you say here being factually correct - particularly the second last sentence. History is pretty clear on the topic.

 

However, again, I do believe that voting has consequences (Alf mentioned the German people being partly responsible for what the Nazis did as an example), and if one does go for a far-right option for whatever reason, at least some of what they then do when in power rests on those who voted for them.

 

It's an awful dilemma, I know: either think the political establishment doesn't represent you and you're marginalised or vote for a government that may well oversee oppression of any ethnic group they don't like...but no one ever said such choices were always nice or fair.

 

Really, again, this comes down to tribalism and cultural clashes on all sides that tend to morph into supremacist views, all of which humanity needs to get over and quickly - not because of some high and mighty moral ideal, but for the sake of utility going into the future, because you can bet everyone's arse that there will be problems going forward that will need input from all of humanity or fail catastrophically.

[Webbo]

 

[bovril]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I don't disagree with what you say but people have tended to vote for the harder line political parties when the mainstream politicians continue to ignore them. 

 

For example, there's always been a disgruntled part of the population that's deeply concerned about immigration. Yeah some people are racist but a lot of them aren't. It's a legitimate concern for many.

 

So to take the UK as an example - people are already concerned about immigration; while Labour was sending everyone of my generation to university at all costs, they created a skills shortage in the mid 2000s. Then they said that only 50k Poles would be coming when they joined. 500K came. Cameron wanted to talk about it in the 2005 election but the discussion was framed as racist. 

Then in 2010 the Labour Prime Minister is caught on mic calling an old woman bigoted because she asked a legitimate question about the scale of uncontrolled immigration. 

Cameron's coalition promised to reduce it to the 10s of thousands. Which was obviously not possible.

 

So more people get more and more disgruntled about not only not being listened to, but also slandered as racist. Then in 2015 - Cameron wins by surprise after promising a referendum, while UKIP get 4 million votes with only one representative in parliament. 

And again in the referendum, they're all smeared as racist. Front line political figures like Diane Abbott says that 17m people may have voted for Brexit because they wanted to see fewer brown faces.

 

If you talk to people like this you will lose them to politicians who say what they want to hear even if they don't share the more extreme aspects of that belief. 

 

This is why Clinton lost in 2016. 

Clinton lost because she was a crap candidate, there are swathes of America that'd vote for Stalin if he was a Republican and America has a weird electoral system. As for Gillian Duffy, she asked "where do all these Eastern Europeans come from" (eastern Europe gill!), hardly a "legitimate question".

 

'ordinary voters are being ignored' is the new Kermo is decent. I don't see it. Mainstream parties are falling over themselves to appeal to ordinary voters in the UK and abroad. People know what parties like Afd and La lega stand for, anti establishment and anti immigration. If they want to vote for them then that's their perogative, but if things go tits up (as history suggests it might) they should take responsibility as others have said above. 

[Milo]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

but at the same time a democracy means the vote is the vote 

I thought you were keen on a second referendum on Brexit? 

 

(Apologies if I’m mistaken)

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Yeah I'll roll back on that, some not full is fair.

 

Im on mobile at the minute so cant search but haven't the authorities in Sweden already been caught fiddling crime figures? I remember that being one of the reasons for the upsurge of support for the Swedish Democrats.

 

There was quite a big piece in the Spectator a few months ago. I'll try and find it tomorrow.

 

A Swedish TV station ran the report of an investigation that showed over half of convicted rapists were born abroad - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1014911/Swedish-election-2018-immigration-Sweden-Democrats-Jimmie-Akesson

 

In the interview that I saw, the police chief wasn't questioning the rise in crime, so I don't know anything about any fiddling of figures.

 

He was questioning any link to recent migrant flows, saying the criminals were mainly Swedish-born - though often of immigrant descent, from ghetto areas and people involved in drugs/gangs.

He was mainly talking about murder, as I recall. If your final stat is accurate, it would certainly be shocking, but I see that the figures have been disputed so more definite info is needed.

[Dr The Singh]

Europe politically is changing, immigration seems to be fooking em off no end.  I just hope this all is just a protest vote, not a outlying change in attitudes

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Milo said:

I thought you were keen on a second referendum on Brexit? 

 

(Apologies if I’m mistaken)

Nope, if it comes about then fair enough but if it doesn't then again the responsibility of what comes of it is on those who voted for it. As an egghead the scientific collaboration part (already being affected) is what worries me most about it.

[davieG]

Boundary changes: Final proposals to be published

Final recommendations for new parliamentary boundaries that could see the number of MPs cut from 650 to 600 will be published later.

The Boundary Commission for England submitted its proposals to the government, but they must now be presented to Parliament.

The commission said it was "confident" in its new map, which covers constituencies across the UK.

Parliament approved the principle of reducing the number of MPs in 2011.

Since then, the Boundary Commissions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were meant to redraw the UK's political map every five years to take account of changes in population shifts.

The reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies was meant to happen while the Coalition government was in power between 2010 to 2015.

But it was abandoned in 2013 after the Liberal Democrats withdrew their support, having failed to agree on House of Lords reform with their Tory partners.

As a result, the 2015 election was fought on the same boundaries as in 2010, as was the snap general election in 2017.

The proposed number of seats for the next election are:

England: 501 (down from 533)
Scotland: 53 (down from 59)
Wales: 29 (down from 40)
Northern Ireland: 17 (down from 18)
As well as reducing the number of seats, the review aims to make constituencies more equal in size, in terms of their total number of voters - between 71,031 and 78,507.

The Commission's earlier proposals - based on the electoral register from December 2015 - have been significantly altered following a public consultation, in which thousands of responses were received.

If MPs reject the proposals, the next election will be fought on demographic data based on the 2000 electoral register and will not take into account changes since then.

Next steps
Secretary to the commission, Sam Hartley, said: "We're confident that the new map of constituencies best reflects the rules set for us by Parliament and we're especially pleased that our recommendations are based heavily on what members of the public have told us about their local areas.

"It is now up to the government to present our report to Parliament, and we look forward to being able to publish our recommendations once that has happened."

The BBC's political correspondent, Peter Saull, said critics of the changes have warned that Brexit will mean more legislation in the coming years - and fewer MPs means less parliamentary scrutiny.

He added that Labour had accused the government of "gerrymandering", with the changes expected to most benefit the Conservatives at the ballot box.

But the Tories have insisted the system is currently weighed against them and the boundaries - decided by population figures - are out of date.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45468142

 

A non-party political parliament would be a pipe dream of mine where people stood and voted on their beliefs or the majority of their constituents, local councils used to be more like this although full of the rich and sub-gentry.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 13:51, Sharpe's Fox said:

Internationalism and anti-colonialism is a major, major part of the left. If you are against British capital stealing the wealth the British working class create then surely its a easy evolution to be against British capital stealing the wealth of the working class in another country? If there is someone who claims to be on the left who doesn’t make that step there’s a word for them; a racist. That’s why we stand against colonial predudice in Ireland, Palestine ect.

  "British capital stealing the wealth the working create"!  You've been brainwashed, but then, aren't all extreme lefties the same? They are no more than Communists, as I have said before, Carl Marx would be proud of you.

[davieG]

Michel Barnier has said a Brexit deal is possible within six to eight weeks.

The EU's chief negotiator said it was "realistic" to expect an agreement on the terms of the UK's exit from the EU by early November at the latest.

His comments come amid unconfirmed reports a one-off summit of EU leaders could be convened in the middle of November to sign off the agreement.

Meanwhile, Theresa May has been warned she faces a mass Tory rebellion if she persists with her Chequers plan.

Former Brexit minister Steve Baker said as many as 80 Tories could oppose her plan for future relations with the EU in a Commons vote later this year.

The UK and EU are hoping to finalise the so-called divorce agreement and agree a statement on their future economic co-operation in time for an EU summit in mid-October or by the end of the month at the latest.

Mr Barnier has said this is vital if the UK and EU Parliaments are to have enough time to consider and vote on the proposals before the UK's scheduled departure on 29 March 2019.

But senior Tory Brexiteers are continuing to urge the PM to change course, saying proposals agreed by her cabinet in July - which would see the UK follow EU rules on trade in goods - will not be backed by Parliament.

Mr Baker said the party risked a "catastrophic split" if the PM didn't rethink her approach, which he suggested many MPs - including some who backed Remain - thought was worse than staying in the EU as it would leave the UK without any say in its rules.

A key argument that has been made by MPs opposed to the Chequers deal in recent weeks is that the EU will not accept it, since it seeks different levels of market access and obligations for goods and services.

After meeting Mr Barnier last week, Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said the Frenchman's views were closer to his than those of the prime minister while Labour MP Stephen Kinnock claimed he told him and other MPs that, referring to the Chequers plan, "les propositions sont mortes".

But asked about this at a business forum in Slovenia, Mr Barnier said this was not true. "I never said that, I don't think that. It is not my feeling."

He described the Chequers plan as a "very important" document and suggested the EU was now "benchmarking" it against the mandate it had been given by the EU's 27 other members.

"It is useful because it clearly defines what the wishes are for the UK for future relations."

Mr Barnier said there was "many, many points of convergence" between the two sides, particularly over defence and security and a deal on the terms of withdrawal could be settled within six to eight weeks.

But he warned that the UK's core proposals for trading relations after it leaves were a direct challenge to the founding principles of the EU and the integrity of the single market.

"It is not possible to get freedom for goods without freedom for services, in particular for the movement of people," he said.

Salzburg meeting
Following unconfirmed reports last week that Germany had dropped key objections to the UK's approach, the Financial Times claimed the EU was prepared to begin discussions on the details of Mrs May's plan.

The paper reported Mr Barnier would be given the green light to begin talks at a meeting in Salzburg later this month while the Guardian suggested the EU might use the occasion to also announce an extraordinary meeting of EU leaders in November to nail down the final agreement.

The talk in Brussels among senior EU officials is increasingly of a special Brexit summit in the week commencing 12 November, if as is widely expected, a deal can't be struck in October.

The Chequers agreement led to the resignations of then-Brexit Secretary David Davis and the former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, both of whom have continued to criticise the direction of government policy.

Mr Johnson caused controversy over the weekend with a column in the Mail on Sunday, calling the PM's plan a "suicide vest" around the UK, with the detonator in Brussels' hands.

No 10 has said its plan was the "only one on the table" able to deliver on the will of British people while avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Asked when Brexiteers outside of the government would come up with a detailed alternative, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said he and others would be putting forward a "whole set of new ideas" in the coming weeks but it was up to ministers to mould them into a plan that would be approved by Parliament.