Also in the news

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

This is the most depressing statistic:

 

"The poll reveals 36% are not aware of the Conservative party’s stance, while 38% say the same about Labour.

For those who said they knew, 23% think the Conservatives support a soft Brexit, while 23% think they support a hard Brexit. For the Labour party, 25% think they support remaining in the EU, while 31% think they support a soft Brexit."

 

Exactly the same as before - people with little or no understanding of the issue making decisions for the rest of us.

 

 

I sort of agree with your essential point - that the public are pretty ill-informed about politics. Like @leicsmac, I think voters have a responsibility to ensure they're reasonably well-informed about important political issues.

These are issues that affect what sort of country we live in, how we are governed, how we are represented abroad, what tax we pay, what services we get, what sort of society we live in....they matter to real life.

 

Quite how you get people to become better-informed I'm not sure, especially when so much that politicians say is dishonest, manipulative, evasive or about controlling a media message, presenting an image etc.

I do think that citizenship lessons in schools need beefing up with more about democracy, basic political ideas/choices, functioning of society etc.....but that only addresses future generations of voters, not current adults.

 

Mind you, I don't blame the public for the mixed interpretations you've quoted. The leaderships, MPs and memberships of both main parties are split, so some confusion is inevitable.

- A sizeable minority of Tory MPs clearly support a Hard Brexit, a smaller minority clearly support a Soft Brexit. May's Deal is the official line - a slightly diluted Hard Brexit that might become semi-Soft if the backstop came into play long-term.

- Labour supports Soft Brexit....but will support a 2nd Referendum (& mostly Remain) in preference to No Deal or anything like May's Deal

......Overall, the public understanding doesn't seem too far out!

 

Incidentally, I must be one of a tiny minority who agree with the official Labour line at this point:

- Soft Brexit (CU "with a say" but no veto; close to SM; social/environmental protection), if negotiable;

- 2nd Referendum if the only alternative is No Deal, May's unpopular deal or a permanent impasse (& No Deal would have to be an option in that referendum, I think)

 

Labour has done a shite job at presenting its stance, though. They get into too much complexity & vagueness, too many hypotheticals.

The message should be: "We respect the democratic vote and support a Brexit that keeps us close to our neighbours & protects our rights. But if we're heading for No Deal or a damaging deal, we support a 2nd referendum"

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I sort of agree with your essential point - that the public are pretty ill-informed about politics. Like @leicsmac, I think voters have a responsibility to ensure they're reasonably well-informed about important political issues.

These are issues that affect what sort of country we live in, how we are governed, how we are represented abroad, what tax we pay, what services we get, what sort of society we live in....they matter to real life.

 

Quite how you get people to become better-informed I'm not sure, especially when so much that politicians say is dishonest, manipulative, evasive or about controlling a media message, presenting an image etc.

I do think that citizenship lessons in schools need beefing up with more about democracy, basic political ideas/choices, functioning of society etc.....but that only addresses future generations of voters, not current adults.

 

Mind you, I don't blame the public for the mixed interpretations you've quoted. The leaderships, MPs and memberships of both main parties are split, so some confusion is inevitable.

- A sizeable minority of Tory MPs clearly support a Hard Brexit, a smaller minority clearly support a Soft Brexit. May's Deal is the official line - a slightly diluted Hard Brexit that might become semi-Soft if the backstop came into play long-term.

- Labour supports Soft Brexit....but will support a 2nd Referendum (& mostly Remain) in preference to No Deal or anything like May's Deal

......Overall, the public understanding doesn't seem too far out!

 

Incidentally, I must be one of a tiny minority who agree with the official Labour line at this point:

- Soft Brexit (CU "with a say" but no veto; close to SM; social/environmental protection), if negotiable;

- 2nd Referendum if the only alternative is No Deal, May's unpopular deal or a permanent impasse (& No Deal would have to be an option in that referendum, I think)

 

Labour has done a shite job at presenting its stance, though. They get into too much complexity & vagueness, too many hypotheticals.

The message should be: "We respect the democratic vote and support a Brexit that keeps us close to our neighbours & protects our rights. But if we're heading for No Deal or a damaging deal, we support a 2nd referendum"

It runs deeper than this, sadly.

 

Those politicians are exactly as you say because by and large humanity is set to value short-term tribal self-interest above all else, and they know that presenting an image as you detail above is the easiest way to gain and keep power. In this day and age, there is no excuse to not be informed, and that people choose to not be is indicative of that same short-term self-interest. People simply do not care and empathy rarely goes beyond line of sight.

 

TBH that's why I think while international cooperation on various matters is essential, I fear it may be doomed to fail - people democratically exercising their freedom of choice to condemn the future.

 

Edit: I know this sounds terribly bleak and I still hold out hope for the future, but I'm not seeing much evidence in the news to the contrary - if someone could provide some, that would make me happy.

Edited 12 May 2019 by leicsmac

[Buce]

This is what the 'man of the people' is really about:

Farage calls for private health firms to 'relieve burden on NHS'

Brexit party leader also defends anti-immigrant posters and says UK should limit efforts to curb global warming

 

Nigel Farage has said private health firms should “relieve the burden” of the NHS, that the UK should limit efforts to curb global warming, and defended anti-immigrant posters, as the rapid rise of his Brexit party led to his personal beliefs placed under scrutiny.

In an often testy BBC interview, Farage also justified his decision to shift from praising Norway-type deals before the Brexit referendum to advocating a no-deal departure, saying this was needed because Theresa May had botched the process.

A poll ahead of the European elections has put the Brexit party, formed months ago after Farage quit Ukip, on 34% support, more than the combined total for Labour, on 21%, and the Conservatives, on 11%.

 

Farage has complete policy control over his new party, which has paid “supporters” rather than members, describing it in a newspaper interview on Sunday as “a company, not a political party”.

Interviewed on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show, Farage said that while his party’s platform for the European elections was clear – push to leave without a deal – it would not have a formal manifesto, saying this had “a word association with ‘lie’”.

Asked whether previous beliefs he has expressed could be seen as a pointer to the party’s direction, Farage responded angrily, saying: “This is absolutely ludicrous. I’ve never in my life seen a more ridiculous interview than this.” At another point he said: “What’s wrong with the BBC?”

Farage denied he wanted to replace the NHS with private insurance, but said insurers could “take the burden off the NHS”. He said: “If I was encouraged to opt out of the system, to relieve the burden on the health service, I would do so gleefully.” Farage added that the line of questioning was “really very boring”.

Asked if he still thought measures to tackle global warming were “stupid”, he replied: “I believe that if we decide in this country to tax ourselves to the hilt, to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in manufacturing industries, given that we produce less than 2% of global C02, that isn’t terribly intelligent.”

Farage also confirmed his belief that HIV-positive migrants should not be allowed to move to the UK, and defended the leave campaign’s anti-migrant poster campaign in the Brexit referendum that showed a mass of mainly non-white people with the slogan, “Breaking point”.

“It was the truth, and if you think about that poster it’s transformed European politics,” Farage told Marr.

But he declined to say whether he still backed looser gun controls, saying: “This sums it up. I’ve been going round the country speaking to packed rallies every night. And do you know who’s not there? The BBC. And from this line of questioning I can see why.”

Asked why in 2016 he had no advocated a no-deal Brexit, Farage said: “Because it was obvious that we could do a free trade deal.”

He added: “The problem is the prime minister never asked for it so we finished up in the mess that we’re in. She chose to go for this close and special partnership. Basically right from the start she was happy for us to be kept very close to the customs union. So where we are now, the only way the democratic will of the people can be delivered is to leave on a WTO [World Trade Organization] deal.”

While conceding he had praised the close deals with the EU enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland, Farage insisted he had always wanted the UK to exit on very different terms.

Arguing May had “wilfully deceived us”, he said: “What she’s put to parliament three times isn’t a deal, it’s a new European treaty. I didn’t spend 25 years campaigning to leave the EU to sign up to a new treaty.”

A no-deal Brexit, he added, could bring “some short-term economic disruption – moving house leads to short-term disruption”.

Speaking later on the same show, Labour’s shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, said Farage had been evasive.

Ashworth said: “Nigel Farage doesn’t want to stand on his record, because his record is one of wanting to privatise the NHS, it’s on big tax cuts for the very rich and penalising working people in this country.”

 

 

[Bryn]

I think there'd be a considerably larger majority for Farage to be put on a lifeboat and cast into the North Sea than for Brexit.

[Alf Bentley]

18 hours ago, MattP said:

Only polling but if it's anywhere near close this is outrageous. 

 

Nigel Farage the Kingmaker.

 

 

I'd guess that Euro poll could be close to the outcome. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if the Brexit Party gets even more than 34%.

 

After the local elections, I saw several people interviewed who supported Brexit but had cast protest votes for the Lib Dems. I can see the mirror image happening this time.

As well as getting most of the pro-Brexit vote, I can see Farage picking up votes from those who just want it over with (either way) or who want to protest against our shambolic govt/parliament - Brexit Party as natural vessel for protest votes, where the Lib Dems & Greens were in the locals. Insane that we could get a big protest vote for a pro-Brexit party, 3 weeks after a big protest vote for 2 anti-Brexit parties....

 

Quite what that Westminster poll would mean in practice, if people voted that way in a general election, I've no idea given our electoral system and the importance of regional variations in party vote.

In 1983, the SDP stood in half of all seats and got about 23% (Liberals stood in other half)....but the SDP only got 6 MPs....partly because their vote was fairly evenly spread across the country.

 

If the Brexit Party got 21% nationally, my guess is that they'd get more MPs than the SDP in 1983, as their vote would not be so evenly spread.

They'd get few votes in Scotland, London or most major cities or university towns - and probably not enough to win in the wealthier Tory shires.

But I presume they'd get a lot more than 21% in less wealthy Tory areas (parts of Essex, Kent, E. Anglia & SW) & in struggling, de-industrialized Labour towns in the North & Midlands.

They could easily win a fair few seats of that sort, with 30-40% of the local vote, if they were 3-way contests, with other votes divided between Con, Lab & other parties.

 

If polls like this are still happening in the run-up to an election, it will be interesting to see local or regional polls/breakdowns.

A lot could change by then, though - Brexit resolved and/or a new Tory PM...  

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd guess that Euro poll could be close to the outcome. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if the Brexit Party gets even more than 34%.

 

After the local elections, I saw several people interviewed who supported Brexit but had cast protest votes for the Lib Dems. I can see the mirror image happening this time.

As well as getting most of the pro-Brexit vote, I can see Farage picking up votes from those who just want it over with (either way) or who want to protest against our shambolic govt/parliament - Brexit Party as natural vessel for protest votes, where the Lib Dems & Greens were in the locals. Insane that we could get a big protest vote for a pro-Brexit party, 3 weeks after a big protest vote for 2 anti-Brexit parties....

 

Quite what that Westminster poll would mean in practice, if people voted that way in a general election, I've no idea given our electoral system and the importance of regional variations in party vote.

In 1983, the SDP stood in half of all seats and got about 23% (Liberals stood in other half)....but the SDP only got 6 MPs....partly because their vote was fairly evenly spread across the country.

 

If the Brexit Party got 21% nationally, my guess is that they'd get more MPs than the SDP in 1983, as their vote would not be so evenly spread.

They'd get few votes in Scotland, London or most major cities or university towns - and probably not enough to win in the wealthier Tory shires.

But I presume they'd get a lot more than 21% in less wealthy Tory areas (parts of Essex, Kent, E. Anglia & SW) & in struggling, de-industrialized Labour towns in the North & Midlands.

They could easily win a fair few seats of that sort, with 30-40% of the local vote, if they were 3-way contests, with other votes divided between Con, Lab & other parties.

 

If polls like this are still happening in the run-up to an election, it will be interesting to see local or regional polls/breakdowns.

A lot could change by then, though - Brexit resolved and/or a new Tory PM...  

3

 

I don't think Brexit will ever be resolved.

 

The arguments will rumble on for a generation.

[Carl the Llama]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

You can call it what you like.

 

What it is is a stupidocracy (yes, I've introduced a new word into the English language - it means 'a society governed by people selected by the stupid')

There's already a word for that... a movie too 

[Sir Shep]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48242766

 

So Alyssa Milano proposes a sex strike due to abortion law changes in Georgia, well it won’t effect me as I have a wife not a girlfriend so way ahead of ya. 

[Milo]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

Not at all. 

 

It gave a disproportionate say to those who won’t live to see the consequences. 

 

We, as a society, say that at sixteen you are mature enough to bring a child into the world, but not mature enough to decide what kind of world it is born into. Do you not see the contradiction in that? 

 

Meanwhile, there is no upper age limit preventing people in cognitive decline from having their say. 

 

Call it what you like but democracy it isn’t. 

Are you saying that Remain lost because there weren't enough children involved?

 

 

So, following this logic...UK youngsters should have a say, because they will have to deal with the mess/reap the rewards of whatever the particular outcome is..

 

 

 

But you are happy that the UK abides by laws created by un-elected, non-UK based civil servants conducting their business from an entirely different country?  

 

[Nick]

If we are going to change the level of engagement and understanding in British politics three things in my opinion need to happen.

 

1. The voting age to be lowered to 16

 

2. GCSE politics to be essential as Maths and English and a compulsory subject.

 

3. In turn, political parties being forced to engage with youth and their youth offer.

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

 

It was not the will of the majority, however you like to spin it. 

If you don’t vote, you give consent for those that do to decide for you. A vote not cast, becomes a vote for the end result.

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

If we are going to change the level of engagement and understanding in British politics three things in my opinion need to happen.

 

1. The voting age to be lowered to 16

 

2. GCSE politics to be essential as Maths and English and a compulsory subject.

 

3. In turn, political parties being forced to engage with youth and their youth offer.

How do 1 and 2 actually increase engagement?

I'm yet to understand why people think the voting age should arbitrarily be 16 instead of 14 or 18.

People still have **** all idea about Shakespeare despite it being forced upon them at GCSE. 

 

How is 3 even feasible? 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Are you saying that Remain lost because there weren't enough children involved?

 

 

So, following this logic...UK youngsters should have a say, because they will have to deal with the mess/reap the rewards of whatever the particular outcome is..

 

 

 

But you are happy that the UK abides by laws created by un-elected, non-UK based civil servants conducting their business from an entirely different country?  

 

 

This argument has been had to death - read back through the last 129 pages if you want to re-hash the arguments - I have better things to do.

[Milo]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

This argument has been had to death - read back through the last 129 pages if you want to re-hash the arguments - I have better things to do.

Well debated 

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

Well debated 

 

I don't know where you've been for the last three years, but this entire debate has been had by me and others until we're blue in the face; the thread has been closed at least twice. There really is nothing left to say that hasn't been said a hundred times before. Just like in the country itself, no one is going to agree and it will become increasingly fractious. So what's the fvcking point?

[Buce]

Farage criticised for using antisemitic themes to criticise Soros

Nigel Farage’s Brexit party has described criticism by Jewish groups and MPs as “pathetic” after it emerged he repeatedly used themes associated with antisemitism to criticise the financier George Soros.

Following strong condemnation of Farage’s use of language, echoing other conspiracy theories popular with antisemites, during interviews with the far-right US website Infowars, a Guardian investigation has found he called Soros “the biggest danger to the entire western world”, among other comments.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors and counters antisemitic sentiment, said Soros was a favourite hate figure among far-right antisemites. “Instead of dismissing these concerns, Nigel Farage should ensure that his language does not help these ideas to spread in British politics,” the charity said.

 

Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs from the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism also expressed concern. Nicky Morgan, the Conservative former education secretary, said it was “lazy and deliberately divisive dog-whistle politics to attack someone, however subtly, because of their gender, race or religion”.

In response, a Brexit party spokesman said the criticism was “an exceptionally feeble attempt to portray Nigel Farage as an antisemite”, calling it “lamentable” and “pathetic”.

Farage’s claims include that Soros wants to fundamentally reshape Europe’s racial makeup and to end the continent’s Christian culture. He also praised Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for having the “courage to stand up against him”.

Soros, a Jewish-born Hungarian-American, is accused by Farage, Orbán and others of using his wealth to spread liberal doctrines through the work of his Open Society Foundations, to which he has transferred billions of pounds of his wealth.

However, Jewish groups say portrayals of Soros as a scheming puppet-master – as frequently used by Orbán – regularly spill over into antisemitic conspiracy theories of Jewish bankers controlling governments.

The Guardian has found that in an interview with the US network Fox News in June last year, Farage said Soros “in many ways is the biggest danger to the entire western world”.

Farage said Soros sought “to undermine democracy and to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically, of the whole European continent”. The latter claim directly echoes conspiracy theories against Soros made by far-right groups such as Generation Identity.

In other interviews and speeches in 2017 and 2018, Farage:

• Said Soros “wants to break down the fundamental values of our society and, in the case of Europe, he doesn’t want Europe to be based on Christianity”.

• Claimed the EU was funded and influenced “by the Goldman Sachs, the JP Morgans, and a particular Hungarian called Mr Soros”.

• Alleged the work of Soros’s foundation could amount to “the biggest level of political collusion in history”.

• Argued criticising Soros should not be seen as antisemitic since Soros was in fact an atheist.

Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP who is a vice-chair of the parliamentary antisemitism group, said: “Anyone who holds elected office should take particular care with the language they use about minority groups.

 

“Antisemitic conspiracy theories have been causing harm for centuries. Those who speculate about conspiracy theories therefore run the risk of energising antisemitism, particularly if they combine that with reference to individuals from the Jewish community.”

Labour’s Wes Streeting, also a vice-chair, said: “Nigel Farage doesn’t want to answer questions about his smears against George Soros, because they play into some of the worst antisemitic tropes.

“He is in the gutter, capitalising on a rising tide of antisemitic conspiracy theories to peddle his political message. It is no more respectable than the racism he left behind in Ukip.”

The Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, also one of the group’s vice-chairs, said: “The suggestion that Nigel Farage can be judge and jury over what constitutes antisemitism is abhorrent, not least because of the very dubious comments he has made in the past. Despite his attempts to recast himself at these elections, the mask has already slipped.”

A Brexit party spokesman said: “There is absolutely nothing in any of these remarks to substantiate an allegation of antisemitism. It is an exceptionally feeble attempt to portray Nigel Farage as an antisemite. Anybody with an iota of intelligence or objectivity will see right through it.

“This long list of supposed ‘revelations’ amounts to nothing more than a reasonable and measured critique of the well-known political activities and ambitions of a high-profile billionaire. Even by the Guardian’s lamentable standards, this manufactured story is pathetic.”

[Milo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I don't know where you've been for the last three years, but this entire debate has been had by me and others until we're blue in the face; the thread has been closed at least twice. There really is nothing left to say that hasn't been said a hundred times before. Just like in the country itself, no one is going to agree and it will become increasingly fractious. So what's the fvcking point?

Nothing narky about the debate from my end, bud.

 

I was interested in what you had to say yesterday and today and that was what I was responding to - not sure what your strop is about, tbh.

 

Your input was about demographics, PR, democracy and how that has affected where we are today

 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

How do 1 and 2 actually increase engagement?

I'm yet to understand why people think the voting age should arbitrarily be 16 instead of 14 or 18.

People still have **** all idea about Shakespeare despite it being forced upon them at GCSE. 

 

How is 3 even feasible? 

If we want to change engagement in politics in this country, young people need to be involved. The three steps suggested increases all stakeholder investment into doing this.

[Carl the Llama]

30 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

If we want to change engagement in politics in this country, young people need to be involved. The three steps suggested increases all stakeholder investment into doing this.

One problem though is no matter how engaged the public are it makes little difference if the candidates are all different varieties of terrible.  What about cutting mp salaries to put them in line with, say, fully qualified nurses to make it a vocation rather than a career?

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I don't know where you've been for the last three years, but this entire debate has been had by me and others until we're blue in the face; the thread has been closed at least twice. There really is nothing left to say that hasn't been said a hundred times before. Just like in the country itself, no one is going to agree and it will become increasingly fractious. So what's the fvcking point?

Clearly it hasn't, as it's still up.

 

 

 

 

 

Can I get a rep on the Pedants thread, please

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Milo said:

Clearly it hasn't, as it's still up.

1

 

Meh, it just gets launched with a new name.

 

6 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

Can I get a rep on the Pedants thread, please

 

 

When you learn to use punctuation properly, you might.

[Buce]

26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

One problem though is no matter how engaged the public are it makes little difference if the candidates are all different varieties of terrible.  What about cutting mp salaries to put them in line with, say, fully qualified nurses to make it a vocation rather than a career?

 

An even better idea is to give them £73 a week to live on, like the rest of the unemployed.

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

If we are going to change the level of engagement and understanding in British politics three things in my opinion need to happen.

 

1. The voting age to be lowered to 16

 

2. GCSE politics to be essential as Maths and English and a compulsory subject.

 

3. In turn, political parties being forced to engage with youth and their youth offer.

I don't think it's about being knowledgeable of Politics, it's just about being able to critically analyse what somebody says. If you critically analyse the Brexit party you could state; yes they're going to get us out of and free of the nasty EU without a deal however they also have no policies, have a leader who's in bed with with a borderline facist (Bannon) and a no deal Brexit would be catastrophic for business in this country, hence why May went back on her 'no deal/bad deal' quip. 

 

People seem unable to have the thinking skills to actually do this. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

I don't think it's about being knowledgeable of Politics, it's just about being able to critically analyse what somebody says. If you critically analyse the Brexit party you could state; yes they're going to get us out of and free of the nasty EU without a deal however they also have no policies, have a leader who's in bed with with a borderline facist (Bannon) and a no deal Brexit would be catastrophic for business in this country, hence why May went back on her 'no deal/bad deal' quip. 

 

People seem unable to have the thinking skills to actually do this. 

Even worse, some people genuinely believe that no deal will be rosy.

[urban.spaceman]

.

Edited 12 May 2019 by urban.spaceman