What's in the news?

[Vacamion]

 

I've tried not to venture into this thread or its predecessor too much, as most people are pretty set on their opinions about current political news, and so discussion tends to be a bit circular.

 

However, I've just seen online that group of angry blokes, those wannabe gilets jaunes, harassing Owen Jones and also Anna Soubury outside Westminster today.

 

Not good.

 

With the potential to spill over.

 

Looks like some people learned nothing after what happened to Jo Cox.

 

If you disagree with someone's policies or actions, you should by all means be free to shout your opinions at them from a reasonable distance, but not to get up in their grille,block their way and intimidate them in a group.

 

I don't like Owen Jones very much and I do rather admire Anna Soubury, but, regardless of political hue, neither should have been subjected to that treatment.

 

I regret that I like our country less and less. 

[Strokes]

51 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

I've tried not to venture into this thread or its predecessor too much, as most people are pretty set on their opinions about current political news, and so discussion tends to be a bit circular.

 

However, I've just seen online that group of angry blokes, those wannabe gilets jaunes, harassing Owen Jones and also Anna Soubury outside Westminster today.

 

Not good.

 

With the potential to spill over.

 

Looks like some people learned nothing after what happened to Jo Cox.

 

If you disagree with someone's policies or actions, you should by all means be free to shout your opinions at them from a reasonable distance, but not to get up in their grille,block their way and intimidate them in a group.

 

I don't like Owen Jones very much and I do rather admire Anna Soubury, but, regardless of political hue, neither should have been subjected to that treatment.

 

I regret that I like our country less and less. 

I totally agree, it’s disgusting behaviour. No political will should be obtained by force or intimidation.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

I think the threat of violence is massively overblown and no different to the perceived threats of a messy Brexit. There will be protests whatever happens. 

 

You say that you support Remain but then criticise the Lib Dems for supporting the People's Vote after the first referendum. What do you think we should have done? The party policy was always that people should get a final say on an agreed deal and that to me has turned out to be the most sensible "Remain" option. We could have campaigned explicitly on the basis of wanting to immediately revoke Article 50 but realistically we were never going to get a sufficient quantity of MPs to make that policy a reality. A People's Vote is a lot more realistic, especially if any deal is unable to get a parliamentary majority. If tuition fees are anything to go by then Vince Cable prefers to work towards an objective rather than chasing popularity. I suspect he is much more active behind the scenes, a People's Vote needs cross-party support to get a majority in parliament - fronting the campaign would make it harder to draw in that support if it was seen as a Lib Dem endeavor. I don't think Vince Cable is particularly loyal to the Lib Dems as an institution. 

 

I'm proud enough of the Lib Dems being the first to support a workable remain strategy, at the time I wanted something more explicitly pro-remain but it was always the case that the policy was aimed towards the end of negotiations rather than the 2017 snap election and a lot of Remainers won't credit the Lib Dems for partisan reasons. This is the first time since Iraq that the party has been ahead of the curve on an important issue.

 

I don't think a hypothetical Corbyn led government would pursue an overt "No deal" strategy, but I think Corbyn is quite happy to let the Conservative party take the blame for Brexit. If May's deal is rejected as expected then it's important Corbyn does something coherent and not another stupid publicity stunt like the no confidence vote on just Theresa May (which wouldn't have meant anything even with a majority). 

 

 

There will indeed be public discontent regardless of the outcome. But the scale of the conflict could be greater depending on the path we take. Maybe you're right that the threat of violence is overblown but it would be surprising if there was NOT significantly more violence than last time - involving a minority, of course, but situations can quickly escalate. Rightly or wrongly, there will be people feeling angry that their 2016 vote is being ignored - anger doubtless exploited by people like Tommy Robinson. Look at the next post after yours from Vacamion about aggression towards Soubry/Jones today. That's BEFORE any referendum. Can you imagine how inflamed things could get during a referendum?

 

Where I do agree with you is about the threats of a "messy Brexit". I think the damage and conflict caused by a chaotic No Deal would be much worse than during a referendum. If the choice is between No Deal and a referendum, I'd definitely want the latter. But what would the questions be? Polls suggest that there has only been a small shift towards Remain (for now) but widespread opposition to May's Deal - and a lot of support for No Deal. There would be outrage on the Brexiteer side if the choice were between May's Deal and Remain.....so do you just go ahead and risk angering up to half of the population, alienating large swathes of the population from democratic politics, or do you include No Deal or some other Brexit option, which might win....?

 

If we had to have a referendum, a two-stage one with a second vote on the deal negotiated would have been better.....if that had been clear before the first referendum, but it wasn't. Everyone went into the referendum believing that it was a one-off decision. It is obviously going to be massively controversial to change the rules after the first vote without a strong reason. A large shift in public opinion towards Remain would have constituted such a reason - but that hasn't happened; most people's opinions haven't shifted. If we end up heading inevitably for No Deal (i.e. May's Deal is defeated and no other deal has parliamentary support), that constitutes such a reason. If a viable deal can get through parliament, then there's a strong argument for accepting it - even if, like you, I think Remain (and reform) is the best option.

 

Genuine question: Did the Lib Dems campaign for a two-stage referendum BEFORE the first one, or only after the result was known? I don't remember any big pressure for a potential second vote beforehand - from anyone. I only remember some argument over the wording of the question and some thinking that there shouldn't be a referendum at all. The 2015 Lib Dem manifesto merely says the party would hold a referendum if MORE sovereignty is transferred to the EU and would then campaign for Remain - nothing about a vote on the final deal in the event of a Leave vote.

 

After the referendum, the Lib Dems could have respected the democratic vote at least long enough to give the govt a chance to show what they could negotiate. As an unequivocally pro-EU party, they could have gone round the country whipping up support for the EU, in theory, but their poorish result in 2017 suggests that wouldn't have had much impact. The vast majority of people, including most Remainers, accepted the result and were waiting for the govt to get on with it - or at least to see what happened. While I'm not a fan of Corbyn, I was happy with the Labour fence-sitting stance. I hoped that the govt's shambolic negotiations and rubbish deal would open people's minds and turn public opinion massively against Brexit, so that Labour, Lib Dems & others could have credibly sought a Remain outcome....but that doesn't seem to have happened. Labour certainly needs to be off that fence and proposing an alternative to No Deal if May's deal is defeated, though. If they cannot get an election and cannot get a parliamentary majority for an acceptable Brexit stance (e.g. EFTA/EEA with a Customs Union, no hard Irish border, mirrored EU social/environmental legislation), then they should support a second referendum.

 

I agree with you about the confidence vote purely on May being a "publicity stunt". That was just designed to show Remain-supporting Labourites (the vast majority) that he was "doing something" (he wasn't), while he avoided a proper govt confidence vote - so as to avoid his own party policy of then backing a referendum.....because he's a Neanderthal "socialism in one country" type. I hope Starmer, Thornberry, McDonnell (?) and others have his arm twisted up his back right now to force him to do something constructive - though there are benefits and justice in the Tories taking the blame for Brexit.....but not if that leads to an avoidably disastrous outcome for the nation!

 

Of course, it has to be a cross-party campaign for a Second Referendum (I see the name "People's Vote" as alienating, counter-productive propaganda). But its just competent politics that the Lib Dems should have a high profile in that campaign, alongside those from other parties. That doesn't seem to have been the case. In England, the Lib Dems have been (with the Greens) the only unequivocally pro-Remain party at a time when half the country supports Remain and Brexit is the key issue....yet the Lib Dems don't seem to have garnered any extra support whatsoever. Maybe that'll change if Corbyn cocks up big-time next week. I hope he doesn't. If he does, my vote would probably go to the Greens, not the Lib Dems. 

[urban.spaceman]

7 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

I've tried not to venture into this thread or its predecessor too much, as most people are pretty set on their opinions about current political news, and so discussion tends to be a bit circular.

 

However, I've just seen online that group of angry blokes, those wannabe gilets jaunes, harassing Owen Jones and also Anna Soubury outside Westminster today.

 

Not good.

 

With the potential to spill over.

 

Looks like some people learned nothing after what happened to Jo Cox.

 

If you disagree with someone's policies or actions, you should by all means be free to shout your opinions at them from a reasonable distance, but not to get up in their grille,block their way and intimidate them in a group.

 

I don't like Owen Jones very much and I do rather admire Anna Soubury, but, regardless of political hue, neither should have been subjected to that treatment.

 

I regret that I like our country less and less. 

I really don’t like the pair of them either and the constant harassment they’ve been getting is seriously unpleasant. But you could argue that they’ve made a rod for their own by constantly showing nothing but contempt for the Brexit vote and the people who voted for it. 

 

Not tha tim excusing this behaviour. I’m just fed up of the chronic twattery everywhere. 

[Buce]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

There will indeed be public discontent regardless of the outcome. But the scale of the conflict could be greater depending on the path we take. Maybe you're right that the threat of violence is overblown but it would be surprising if there was NOT significantly more violence than last time - involving a minority, of course, but situations can quickly escalate. Rightly or wrongly, there will be people feeling angry that their 2016 vote is being ignored - anger doubtless exploited by people like Tommy Robinson. Look at the next post after yours from Vacamion about aggression towards Soubry/Jones today. That's BEFORE any referendum. Can you imagine how inflamed things could get during a referendum?

 

Where I do agree with you is about the threats of a "messy Brexit". I think the damage and conflict caused by a chaotic No Deal would be much worse than during a referendum. If the choice is between No Deal and a referendum, I'd definitely want the latter. But what would the questions be? Polls suggest that there has only been a small shift towards Remain (for now) but widespread opposition to May's Deal - and a lot of support for No Deal. There would be outrage on the Brexiteer side if the choice were between May's Deal and Remain.....so do you just go ahead and risk angering up to half of the population, alienating large swathes of the population from democratic politics, or do you include No Deal or some other Brexit option, which might win....?

 

If we had to have a referendum, a two-stage one with a second vote on the deal negotiated would have been better.....if that had been clear before the first referendum, but it wasn't. Everyone went into the referendum believing that it was a one-off decision. It is obviously going to be massively controversial to change the rules after the first vote without a strong reason. A large shift in public opinion towards Remain would have constituted such a reason - but that hasn't happened; most people's opinions haven't shifted. If we end up heading inevitably for No Deal (i.e. May's Deal is defeated and no other deal has parliamentary support), that constitutes such a reason. If a viable deal can get through parliament, then there's a strong argument for accepting it - even if, like you, I think Remain (and reform) is the best option.

 

Genuine question: Did the Lib Dems campaign for a two-stage referendum BEFORE the first one, or only after the result was known? I don't remember any big pressure for a potential second vote beforehand - from anyone. I only remember some argument over the wording of the question and some thinking that there shouldn't be a referendum at all. The 2015 Lib Dem manifesto merely says the party would hold a referendum if MORE sovereignty is transferred to the EU and would then campaign for Remain - nothing about a vote on the final deal in the event of a Leave vote.

 

After the referendum, the Lib Dems could have respected the democratic vote at least long enough to give the govt a chance to show what they could negotiate. As an unequivocally pro-EU party, they could have gone round the country whipping up support for the EU, in theory, but their poorish result in 2017 suggests that wouldn't have had much impact. The vast majority of people, including most Remainers, accepted the result and were waiting for the govt to get on with it - or at least to see what happened. While I'm not a fan of Corbyn, I was happy with the Labour fence-sitting stance. I hoped that the govt's shambolic negotiations and rubbish deal would open people's minds and turn public opinion massively against Brexit, so that Labour, Lib Dems & others could have credibly sought a Remain outcome....but that doesn't seem to have happened. Labour certainly needs to be off that fence and proposing an alternative to No Deal if May's deal is defeated, though. If they cannot get an election and cannot get a parliamentary majority for an acceptable Brexit stance (e.g. EFTA/EEA with a Customs Union, no hard Irish border, mirrored EU social/environmental legislation), then they should support a second referendum.

 

I agree with you about the confidence vote purely on May being a "publicity stunt". That was just designed to show Remain-supporting Labourites (the vast majority) that he was "doing something" (he wasn't), while he avoided a proper govt confidence vote - so as to avoid his own party policy of then backing a referendum.....because he's a Neanderthal "socialism in one country" type. I hope Starmer, Thornberry, McDonnell (?) and others have his arm twisted up his back right now to force him to do something constructive - though there are benefits and justice in the Tories taking the blame for Brexit.....but not if that leads to an avoidably disastrous outcome for the nation!

Of course, it has to be a cross-party campaign for a Second Referendum (I see the name "People's Vote" as alienating, counter-productive propaganda). But its just competent politics that the Lib Dems should have a high profile in that campaign, alongside those from other parties. That doesn't seem to have been the case. In England, the Lib Dems have been (with the Greens) the only unequivocally pro-Remain party at a time when half the country supports Remain and Brexit is the key issue....yet the Lib Dems don't seem to have garnered any extra support whatsoever. Maybe that'll change if Corbyn cocks up big-time next week. I hope he doesn't. If he does, my vote would probably go to the Greens, not the Lib Dems. 

6

 

Nigel Farage, the de facto leader of the Leave campaign seemed to think not - he was already demanding a second vote when the polls had it as a close Remain victory:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

As to where my vote would go, that would totally depend on the situation; spiritually, I am a Green anyway and would willingly give them my vote if it was likely to count for anything, but in my constituency, the only real challenger to the Tory incumbent is the Lib Dems, especially in an election being fought purely on Brexit.

Edited 8 January 2019 by Buce

[Facecloth]

13 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I really don’t like the pair of them either and the constant harassment they’ve been getting is seriously unpleasant. But you could argue that they’ve made a rod for their own by constantly showing nothing but contempt for the Brexit vote and the people who voted for it. 

 

Not tha tim excusing this behaviour. I’m just fed up of the chronic twattery everywhere. 

Nobody makes a rod for their own back, that's just victim blaming. They are allowed to express an opinion, they are allowed to show contempt for the vote with out expecting harassment and threats of violence.

 

They're all twats. Rees-Mogg is a twat, Farage is a twat, Corbyn is a twat, May is a twat, I could go on, and you have every right to call them that and disagree with them, but not harass and threaten them in the street.

[Finnegan]

35 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I really don’t like the pair of them either and the constant harassment they’ve been getting is seriously unpleasant. But you could argue that they’ve made a rod for their own by constantly showing nothing but contempt for the Brexit vote and the people who voted for it. 

 

Not tha tim excusing this behaviour. I’m just fed up of the chronic twattery everywhere. 

 

Translation: I'm supposed to say it's bad that she got abused but she's not on my side so secretly I think she deserved it. 

 

Personally, my favourite bit was the irony of a bunch of thuggish far right nationalist types calling a woman a nazi because she wanted a democratic vote while they want to plough on and get their own way regardless of public will. 

 

Great stuff. 

[Buce]

8 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

I've tried not to venture into this thread or its predecessor too much, as most people are pretty set on their opinions about current political news, and so discussion tends to be a bit circular.

 

However, I've just seen online that group of angry blokes, those wannabe gilets jaunes, harassing Owen Jones and also Anna Soubury outside Westminster today.

 

Not good.

 

With the potential to spill over.

 

Looks like some people learned nothing after what happened to Jo Cox.

 

If you disagree with someone's policies or actions, you should by all means be free to shout your opinions at them from a reasonable distance, but not to get up in their grille,block their way and intimidate them in a group.

 

I don't like Owen Jones very much and I do rather admire Anna Soubury, but, regardless of political hue, neither should have been subjected to that treatment.

 

I regret that I like our country less and less. 

 

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

I totally agree, it’s disgusting behaviour. No political will should be obtained by force or intimidation.

 

23 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Nobody makes a rod for their own back, that's just victim blaming. They are allowed to express an opinion, they are allowed to show contempt for the vote with out expecting harassment and threats of violence.

 

They're all twats. Rees-Mogg is a twat, Farage is a twat, Corbyn is a twat, May is a twat, I could go on, and you have every right to call them that and disagree with them, but not harass and threaten them in the street.

 

I cannot agree that the principle should be inviolate.

 

Suppose, for example, we had a genuine Nazi government? I would sanction them being hounded and subjected to violence whenever possible. Imagine how different history might have been if someone had given early-days Hitler the kicking he deserved.

[Vacamion]

46 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I really don’t like the pair of them either and the constant harassment they’ve been getting is seriously unpleasant. But you could argue that they’ve made a rod for their own by constantly showing nothing but contempt for the Brexit vote and the people who voted for it. 

 

Not tha tim excusing this behaviour. I’m just fed up of the chronic twattery everywhere. 

 

Any condemnation of the threats and behaviour which includes the word "but" is oxygen and justification to those doing the threatening and shouting down.

 

I therefore regret that I can't agree with what you say.

[Vacamion]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

I cannot agree that the principle should be inviolate.

 

Suppose, for example, we had a genuine Nazi government? I would sanction them being hounded and subjected to violence whenever possible. Imagine how different history might have been if someone had given early-days Hitler the kicking he deserved.

 

It's an interesting debate.  Who gets to decide who merits a kicking?

 

Slippery slope.

 

I'm more in favour of taking action against threats and intimidation rather than administering kickings to those I think might deserve one.

 

The important thing for me is that the law and our freedoms be upheld and protected.

[Finnegan]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

I cannot agree that the principle should be inviolate.

 

Suppose, for example, we had a genuine Nazi government? I would sanction them being hounded and subjected to violence whenever possible. Imagine how different history might have been if someone had given early-days Hitler the kicking he deserved.

 

Early days Hitler was given the kicking he deserved. Along with Goring. He was even subsequently arrested for his nobbery. 

 

Unfortunately, he was massively popular for spouting rubbish populist rhetoric and was already gaining supporters all over the place. 

 

Fascists don't win because they can brute force their way to power, they win by hiding in plain sight, pretending to be something they're not and charming idiots in to following them

 

You don't stop someone like that by shoeing them, you just make them a martyr. You stop someone like that by exposing them. 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

It's an interesting debate.  Who gets to decide who merits a kicking?

 

Slippery slope.

 

I'm more in favour of taking action against threats and intimidation rather than administering kickings to those I think might deserve one.

 

The important thing for me is that the law and our freedoms be upheld and protected.

 

I agree until I ponder the (albeit extreme) example I gave.

 

If our politicians were shipping off people to death camps, would you still uphold the law?

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Early days Hitler was given the kicking he deserved. Along with Goring. He was even subsequently arrested for his nobbery. 

 

Unfortunately, he was massively popular for spouting rubbish populist rhetoric and was already gaining supporters all over the place. 

 

Fascists don't win because they can brute force their way to power, they win by hiding in plain sight, pretending to be something they're not and charming idiots in to following them

 

You don't stop someone like that by shoeing them, you just make them a martyr. You stop someone like that by exposing them. 

3

 

Yet in the UK, that's precisely how Mosely was stopped in his tracks.

 

Anyway, in my example, the Nazis were already in power. So then what?

Edited 8 January 2019 by Buce

[Buce]

 

I came across this interesting statistic this morning, @Alf Bentley

 

YouGov finds a 6% swing towards remain. Doesn’t sound much? That’s a greater swing than for any postwar election bar Tony Blair’s 1997 victory.

[Vacamion]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I agree until I ponder the (albeit extreme) example I gave.

 

If our politicians were shipping off people to death camps, would you still uphold the law?

 

This *has* escalated quickly, Mr Godwin...

 

I don't suppose I would, but the example you have given is quite extreme and not what we are talking about.

 

[Finnegan]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yet in the UK, that's precisely how Mosely was stopped in his tracks.

 

Anyway, in my example, the Nazis were already in power. So then what?

 

The nazis were in power because a hell of a lot of German people wanted them to be. Moseley got a shoeing because a hell of a lot of Brits didn't want him to be. 

 

Yes there was German opposition to Hitler and yes there were a lot of British fascists but if you swapped their support base then we'd have had the fascist dictatorship and they'd have kicked Hitler's head in, no doubt. 

 

If the majority of our public wanted Moseley they'd have got him kicking or not. That's the whole point of populism. 

 

Trump is an absolute moron at best and a dangerous megalomaniac would be dictator at worst but he didn't get in because the American people were scared of him. He got in because people flocked to vote for him for spouting populist rhetoric. He made Mexicans his Jews, a wall his solution and promised poor white Americans they'd be wealthier if they followed him because he's got YUGE BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE. 

 

He then subsequently sent Harley Davidson abroad, messed up his wall, shut down government and took affordable health care away from those poor white Americans and guess what? 

 

They still want him. 

 

You could line up every middle class Liberal feminist from Washington to Washington State (tbf there's probably not many in that space) and let them kick the she shit out of him and all it would do would be empower him in his voter base. 

 

When he's inevitably turfed out it'll be because he's successfully exposed as being a criminal that's in cahoots with America's oldest current enemy, not because some idiot roughed him up.

 

Edit: Barley Davidson would be a great craft beer for bikers. 

 

Edit edit: many more typos. Rushing sorry. 

Edited 8 January 2019 by Finnegan

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

This *has* escalated quickly, Mr Godwin...

 

I don't suppose I would, but the example you have given is quite extreme and not what we are talking about.

 

 

I confess I am playing Devil's advocate to an extent, and - for the record - agree that in the current circumstances it's inexcusable.

 

[Guest MattP]

The influence and support Mosleys BUF had here has been over exaggerated, they got a few thousand votes in a London council election and never stood in a GE - they claimed membership of 50,000 which is a tiny number for the time and the reality was probably less than that. They got support from the Mail and the Mirror for a few months before that was withdrawn as well when Rothermere realised the true intentions and we learnt more about Germany. 

 

What happened yesterday to Soubry was grotesque and ridiculous, I still don't really understand how she is a nazi either, as someone who considers himself a traditionalist it is far worse when it's a group of men surrounding a lone woman as well.

 

As for Owen Jones, I'm sure it was unpleasant for him but I find it difficult to sympathise given he's made a career from insulting and calling anyone who disagrees with him a nazi etc

 

This stuff has been going on for a while outside of parliament, David Davies, Bernard Jenkin and Peter Bone have all been abused by the pro-Remain protestors and barely anyone said a word. It's a shame it has to happen to one of their own before they finally decide to try and do something about it.

 

I bet you many of the people outraged now thought Farage deserved it when he couldn't even take family out for a meal at times because of "direct action" from his opposition. 

 

The MP's aren't totally innocent, on the Tory benches in parliament Claire Perry has called Brexiteers "Jihadis", Ken Clarke "extreme nationalists", Nicolas Soames told Ian Blackford to "go back to Syke" even Rees-Mogg dropped his usual tone to stand up and declare Carney a failed politician, across the other side of the house you have non stop race baiting from MP's like David Lammy happy to drive division for his own end, Jess Phillips talks about "knifing Corbyn in the front".

 

They are all partly responsible for this discourse as well.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

As to where my vote would go, that would totally depend on the situation; spiritually, I am a Green anyway and would willingly give them my vote if it was likely to count for anything, but in my constituency, the only real challenger to the Tory incumbent is the Lib Dems, especially in an election being fought purely on Brexit.

Could you really vote Green in all seriousness? If they were like the German Greens with a serious policy document I could fully understand it but this lot?

 

This was a political party that at the last election wanted to shut down our security services, convert army barracks into windfarms, withdraw from NATO and legalise membership of ISIS, they are crackers and I can't believe an intelligent person could actually vote for them to run a country.

Edited 8 January 2019 by MattP

[Izzy]

Can't believe it's 30 years to the day. Remember the shock and disbelief at the time. What a sad tragedy it was and so close to home...

 

Kegworth air disaster: 30th anniversary service to be held

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-46782519

[The Guvnor]

10 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

I've tried not to venture into this thread or its predecessor too much, as most people are pretty set on their opinions about current political news, and so discussion tends to be a bit circular.

 

However, I've just seen online that group of angry blokes, those wannabe gilets jaunes, harassing Owen Jones and also Anna Soubury outside Westminster today.

 

Not good.

 

With the potential to spill over.

 

Looks like some people learned nothing after what happened to Jo Cox.

 

If you disagree with someone's policies or actions, you should by all means be free to shout your opinions at them from a reasonable distance, but not to get up in their grille,block their way and intimidate them in a group.

 

I don't like Owen Jones very much and I do rather admire Anna Soubury, but, regardless of political hue, neither should have been subjected to that treatment.

 

I regret that I like our country less and less. 

Isn't it a shame there are extremists from all political persuasions, but as a percentage of our population minuscule I would suggest. More day to day ignorance bothers me more, tossers who think its ok to toss a Mcdonalds bag with all the wrappers out of car windows. Dog owners who think its acceptable to let their dogs s#it anywhere and not pick it up. Fly tippers who think its acceptable to dump all types of sh#te in country lanes and water courses. Kids at school who tell teachers to fcuk off and there are many more to add to the list. These are the things that I like less and less about living in the UK.

Edited 8 January 2019 by The Guvnor

[Buce]

54 minutes ago, MattP said:

Could you really vote Green in all seriousness? If they were like the German Greens with a serious policy document I could fully understand it but this lot?

 

This was a political party that at the last election wanted to shut down our security services, convert army barracks into windfarms, withdraw from NATO and legalise membership of ISIS, they are crackers and I can't believe an intelligent person could actually vote for them to run a country.

 

As with most parties, there are things with which I don't agree.

 

Tbh, when I say I'm spiritually a 'Green', I mean more in an abstract sense - I support the 'Green' movement.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Nigel Farage, the de facto leader of the Leave campaign seemed to think not - he was already demanding a second vote when the polls had it as a close Remain victory:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

 

 

I'm aware of Farage's hypocrisy, wanting a second vote when he thought he'd narrowly lose. He even said it on voting night, anticipating a 52% vote the other way. But I think we should set our standards higher than his.

 

He wasn't really the de facto leader of the Leave campaign. A prominent figure then and over previous years, but he was the front man for the unofficial campaign. Last night's TV dramatisation suggested that Dominic Cummings was the de facto leader of the Leave campaign.....though I suspect that was slightly exaggerated. Among politicians, Boris probably had the highest profile/public appeal () and Gove arguably the most policy influence.

 

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I came across this interesting statistic this morning, @Alf Bentley

 

YouGov finds a 6% swing towards remain. Doesn’t sound much? That’s a greater swing than for any postwar election bar Tony Blair’s 1997 victory.

 

Can't see the specific figures in that poll or the precise question asked.

 

What's the figure quoted? A 6% swing from 2016 would be 54%-46% Remain....so still very close, as I said. Indeed, very similar to many polls immediately before the 2016 vote.

By this stage, given the fiasco of the negotiations, the potential risk and the rubbish deal, I hoped that polls would be consistently showing 70%+ support for Remain, which would have clearly justified another referendum....hasn't happened.

 

Don't get me wrong. If we end up with another referendum, I'll vote Remain - and might even get involved in some campaigning. I'd be delighted if we somehow end up reversing this Brexit shitshow.

But Remainers shouldn't delude themselves. A referendum comes with major risks: difficult to organise, timing/question issues, distinct chance of defeat (possibly by a No Deal option), even more toxic social divisions lasting years, violence in the streets and against campaigners. If the only alternative is No Deal or May's Deal, I'd take that risk. If some viable alternative can get through parliament (e.g. Norway/EFTA/EEA), that risk might not be worth it.

[Finnegan]

Let's be honest, most people that vote Green don't exactly read their manifesto, it's not exactly relevant, they're never getting in. It's just a throw away protest vote meant to represent an interest in fairly left wing, fairly environmental politics. 

 

If they were more electable they'd need a sensible manifesto but right now they could put raising taxes by 2500% in order to colonise Neptune with dwarf slaves to grow Super Potatoes for our mass conversion to veganism and they'd still get the same number of votes.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm aware of Farage's hypocrisy, wanting a second vote when he thought he'd narrowly lose. He even said it on voting night, anticipating a 52% vote the other way. But I think we should set our standards higher than his.

 

He wasn't really the de facto leader of the Leave campaign. A prominent figure then and over previous years, but he was the front man for the unofficial campaign. Last night's TV dramatisation suggested that Dominic Cummings was the de facto leader of the Leave campaign.....though I suspect that was slightly exaggerated. Among politicians, Boris probably had the highest profile/public appeal () and Gove arguably the most policy influence.

 

 

I don't have evidence to support it, but I would be willing to bet that at the time of the referendum campaign, Farage would have been the person most associated with Leave by the General Public.