Support NeoGAF

[Camp Freddie]

I'll be voting LD as a meaningless pro-EU protest vote in my safe Tory seat. Maybe they can beat UKIP into 3rd place this time, but I doubt it since the LDs won't spend a penny on campaigning in an unwinnable seat (to be fair, this is a sensible strategy for them).

Farron needs to up his game and say exactly what he will do. An LD majority government is utterly impossible, but he needs to say what he would do in a hung parliament (which is highly unlikely with Labour's collapse, but at least possible).
He can't leave people uncertain about what they are voting for and what he would 'give up' to join a coallition. Will a 2nd referendum be his red line? Or remaining in the single market? Or maintaining freedom of movement? Or let the world burn so long as I get to call myself deputy-PM?

That gay sin answer was really stupid. He KNEW this question would be asked and he's had 2 years to come up with a suitable redirect and, if pressed, an answer like, "I believe all people, gay and straight can obtain redemption through Jesus Christ and sexual abstinence is not necessary for that." that sorta answers the question while allowing him some wiggle-room for his crazy christian bollocks.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Just to jump in here, while I agree with the bolded, people on the Leave side were also campaigning on being like Norway or Switzerland. The government should be pursuing Brexit, but Leaves campaign that basically promised any and all change from what we currently have + the extremely broad referendum question means that while the Gov do have to deliver Brexit, there is no mandate on whether it has to be hard/soft/somewhere-in-the-middle, especially when the winning margin was so low

This might be my bias talking, but the solution that seems best to me would be to just move down to Single Market membership, and then have the government start to actually bother to exercise some of the controls on migration that the EU already allowed. The "sovereignty" crowd would still be left unhappy, but it would pacify both the significant groups of people who want to control immigration, and those who dont want to leave in the first place

To a large extent I agree - you can never get a single, holistic answer to such a complicated question in a referendum and even if you offered all the options it'd be unlikely any single one would get a majority and even if it did there's no guarantee we'd actually be able to obtain such a thing (if we voted to remain in the single market but not have FoM, for example, it's not something the EU would ever give us). I certainly concede this. However whilst some leavers were arguing for a Norwegian style system, some were arguing for a hard Brexit. In fact, the governments' own leaflet trying to convince everyone to vote remain was mostly - in an economic sense - arguing against a hard Brexit, as it was extolling the virtues of our presence in the single market, and talking about how great it is that we can all go around Europe and get jobs without a visa. It was by no means a unified front from the leavers, but fundamentally I struggle to believe (and I'm sort of pulling this out of my arse I suppose, but there we are) there are a lot of people who voted leave thinking we'd retain freedom of movement, single market membership etc. If you wanted all that stuff, surely you'd vote remain? The distinction between, say, Norway's relationship and full membership is so absolutely minimal that I just find it hard to imagine any sizeable number of people going "Yeah, that's what I want, I'm voting out."

Is not voting in the GE defensible if you don't believe in the validity of the election due to it being a thinly-veiled strategic move from the Tories?

Asking for a friend.

Who is also me.

You're all grown up now, you can do anything you want to do.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Post-Article 50, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have functionally the same EU policy, the Lib Dems just posture more.

That's not the way I see it. Labour (Or more accurately and pertinently, Corbyn and McDonnell) are fundamentally opposed to the EU but pro-FOM. In recent speeches they have talked up managed migration and single market access but I find it unconvincing in light of Corbyn's general refusal to discuss these matters of his own volition and his lilly-livered performance in the A 50 debates and votes. Corbyn is not going to hold the government to account on this matter.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

That's not the way I see it. Labour (Or more accurately and pertinently, Corbyn and McDonnell) are fundamentally opposed to the EU but pro-FOM. In recent speeches they have talked up managed migration and single market access but I find it unconvincing in light of Corbyn's general refusal to discuss these matters of his own volition and his lilly-livered performance in the A 50 debates and votes. Corbyn is not going to hold the government to account on this matter.

This is pretty much my view, too.

Corbyn is, at best, soft on EU issues and has failed to fight for the single market. Lib Dems are much less soft. There was an interview recently too where Farron predicted we'll probably be campaigning to rejoin as soon as we actually leave.

You can read up on Clegg's list of reports on Brexit, where he repeatedly outlines the Lib Dem position.

If we ACTUALLY won a majority - because let's do best-case scenarios even if they're not likely given the divided country - then I'd argue that it'd quite clearly show that the public has gone back on the whole Brexit thing.

And no, I don't want to do an avatar bet on this, as the current most likely thing that is going to happen is a Tory landslide with Labour a very distant second and the Lib Dems reasonably close behind.

If we actually beat Labour in the polls, we'll have done an excellent campaign. If we beat the Tories, we'll have pulled off a miracle. But Britain needs a miracle right now.

The job of Lib Dems like me is to change that narrative, present ourselves as the party that can win, and convince the public to change their vote. Nothing is written in stone, nothing is inevitable, and it behooves me and the rest of the party to do as much as we can to change the future.

 

[PJV3]

To a large extent I agree - you can never get a single, holistic answer to such a complicated question in a referendum and even if you offered all the options it'd be unlikely any single one would get a majority and even if it did there's no guarantee we'd actually be able to obtain such a thing (if we voted to remain in the single market but not have FoM, for example, it's not something the EU would ever give us). I certainly concede this. However whilst some leavers were arguing for a Norwegian style system, some were arguing for a hard Brexit. In fact, the governments' own leaflet trying to convince everyone to vote remain was mostly - in an economic sense - arguing against a hard Brexit, as it was extolling the virtues of our presence in the single market, and talking about how great it is that we can all go around Europe and get jobs without a visa. It was by no means a unified front from the leavers, but fundamentally I struggle to believe (and I'm sort of pulling this out of my arse I suppose, but there we are) there are a lot of people who voted leave thinking we'd retain freedom of movement, single market membership etc. If you wanted all that stuff, surely you'd vote remain? The distinction between, say, Norway's relationship and full membership is so absolutely minimal that I just find it hard to imagine any sizeable number of people going "Yeah, that's what I want, I'm voting out."

The big lie was that the UK is so important we will get a great deal, the different types of outcome were not that important. The Tories actually believe it so perhaps lie is too strong a word, listening to John Redwood he thinks an increased majority will achieve it.

Delusional is probably closer, Europe is moving on.

 

[Uzzy]

I have some great kawaii animu renditions of Corbyn I've been saving for exactly this sort of occasion.

Corbyn-sama will make anime real.

 

[TimmmV]

People are going to have to wake the fuck up and get over that shit.

Unless people are honestly saying that this Tory majority shitshow is in any way better than the coalition we had before.

They shouldn't have done the coalition in the first place, it undermined the idea that anything they campaign on was remotely trustworthy. It's not like it was a long time ago either, so hardly unreasonable to still hold them accountable for it

Honestly, I'd have to hear a promise that they wont enter a coalition with the Tories for me to consider voting for them again. If remotely possible they struggle in a slight majority coalition with Labour (with promise from Labour of support for electoral reform), or force the Tories to be a minority government.

Both of those outcomes are shit but they're a consequence of shitty FPTP

 

[Spaghetti]

You're all grown up now, you can do anything you want to do.

I'm going to eat my polling card as a metaphor for politics being shit or summat.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Honestly, I'd have to hear a promise that they wont enter a coalition with the Tories for me to consider voting for them again. If remotely possible they struggle in a slight majority coalition with Labour (with promise from Labour of support for electoral reform), or force the Tories to be a minority government.

I'd like a promise on no coalition too as it would definitely help.

We'll have to wait and see when the manifestos drop. I'm hoping we have some words about coalitions. "Britain must remain a member of the single market" will be a likely red line anyway, so I think a coalition with May is impossible as it stands.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I don't think the coalition was necessarily immoral or devious or what have you and I wouldn't blame them for entering into a second one. It was, however, political suicide because people were obviously going to see it as such (and it would be political suicide again, if we consider the first one a failed attempt). The one thing I would classify as a betrayal is the u-turn on tuition fees.

 

[Joelstinton14]

They shouldn't have done the coalition in the first place, it undermined the idea that anything they campaign on was remotely trustworthy. It's not like it was a long time ago either, so hardly unreasonable to still hold them accountable for it

Honestly, I'd have to hear a promise that they wont enter a coalition with the Tories for me to consider voting for them again. If remotely possible they struggle in a slight majority coalition with Labour (with promise from Labour of support for electoral reform), or force the Tories to be a minority government.

Both of those outcomes are shit but they're a consequence of shitty FPTP

I think many people forget the severity of the situation we were in at the time. The economy was at rock bottom - and i guess the Lib Dems saw it as an opportunity to take on some responsibility - which at the end of the day they did. Things had to get done. So i do admire them for that.

The tuition fees debacle was a complete fuck up, but i think without them we wouldn't have had rises in the amount you earn before tax (which helped me massively) amongst other social issues, as well as keeping the tories in check. Not saying it was all roses, but the state of Britain in 2011 (?) was pretty bleak.

 

[PJV3]

I don't think the coalition was necessarily immoral or devious or what have you and I wouldn't blame them for entering into a second one. It was, however, political suicide because people were obviously going to see it as such (and it would be political suicide again, if we consider the first one a failed attempt). The one thing I would classify as a betrayal is the u-turn on tuition fees.

My biggest problem with it was the way Clegg was completely out played by the Tories, the electoral reform stuff should have woke him up.

 

[JimiNutz]

I've had limited interest in politics until the last few years (have always voted Green Party up until now).

I voted to remain in the referendum and am pro free movement of EU citizens but not necessarily pro EU as a whole and would probably welcome a 'soft' Brexit.

Where can I easily read up on the Labour and Lib Dem political policies so that I can make an informed decision between the two? I know their manifestos are probably available online but I want something a little easier to read and less wordy.

Any good recent interviews with Corbyn or Farron that clearly outline some of their policies?

 

[Mr. Sam]

My biggest problem with it was the way Clegg was completely out played by the Tories, the electoral reform stuff should have woke him up.

I really, really, really don't know why he bothered with an AV referendum. It was more harmful to electoral reform than it was beneficial.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Gonna be a good seven weeks.

Or more accurately a bonkers seven weeks.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I'm going to eat my polling card as a metaphor for politics being shit or summat.

You should do that, then hang around the polling station until you are ready to shit your vote directly into the ballot box.

 

[PJV3]

I really, really, really don't know why he bothered with an AV referendum. It was more harmful to electoral reform than it was beneficial.

Yeah, I could probably forgive Clegg anything if he had at least got proper reform as an option. Fair play to Cameron, he was good at the devious party politics stuff or Osborne was.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The big lie was that the UK is so important we will get a great deal, the different types of outcome were not that important. The Tories actually believe it so perhaps lie is too strong a word, listening to John Redwood he thinks an increased majority will achieve it.

Delusional is probably closer, Europe is moving on.

Maybe baby, but that doesn't change my mind that a hard brexit is the only real course at this stage.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's not the way I see it. Labour (Or more accurately and pertinently, Corbyn and McDonnell) are fundamentally opposed to the EU but pro-FOM. In recent speeches they have talked up managed migration and single market access but I find it unconvincing in light of Corbyn's general refusal to discuss these matters of his own volition and his lilly-livered performance in the A 50 debates and votes. Corbyn is not going to hold the government to account on this matter.

You're not right on FoM. McDonnell is actually relatively strongly opposed to freedom of movement. Historically, Corbyn doesn't seem to have had much opinion one way or the other, but leans against FoM as it stands because of the polling implications (this would be true of any Labour leader). You're thinking of Diane Abbott's stance, but she is neither the majority Labour position nor influential over this particular topic.

Labour's position on the single market is: we would vote for the single market if we could have it without freedom of movement, because that's the position that suits all parts of their base... but this isn't a 'real' position, because fundamentally you simply can't have the single market without freedom of movement. Polling consistently shows the British electorate would chose no single market over no freedom of movement, and any party that seriously aspires to a majority understands that. So Labour's 'real' stance is something like: try and make as much information publicly available as possible about the Brexit process, until then, make noises about the importance of single market while not drawing attention by being seen to be blocking Brexit.

You have to understand this forum represents a small minority of the electorate - liberal, metropolitan, relatively well-off (gaming is expensive), with an international exposure. Even most Remainers now think Brexit should go ahead (not the same as saying they think it will be good). The vast majority of the British public want an end to FoM - even Remainers! It's not like this is a battleground issue. The battle is, realistically, over, and there's about 20% of the electorate who keep trying to hold a frontline lost last year. That's the 20% the Lib Dems are courting.

Realistically, the best case scenario for the Lib Dems is that they sneak seats off the Conservatives and Labour holds stronger than expected, hung parliament, and they get in for a coalition. But neither major party is going to go for single market. If the Lib Dems trying making them do that, they'll become 'enemy of the people' faster than you can rush the Mail to the press. Best case scenario, the Liberal Democrats would push the Conservatives from 'fuck the EU'-style exit to 'keep a lot of trading links' style exit. But that... is Labour's policy right now.

Which is what I mean. Even if you vote Lib Dem and even if they get in government, you'll get the same policy as you'd get under a Labour government. But the Liberal Democrats are even less likely to get into government than Labour are. So the whole thing is pointless.

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong. I really get the importance of having outriders on public opinion who fight for lost causes in the hope that over the long-haul, you change people's minds. In any constituency that's not a marginal, be my guest, vote for the Liberal Democrats. But if you're in a Lab-Con marginal... it just has backfire written all over it.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Yeah, fuck it. I'm going to have to vote Labour because they were second to the Tories last time out in my area.

 

[PJV3]

Maybe baby, but that doesn't change my mind that a hard brexit is the only real course at this stage.

I agree with you, but there was definitely a strong whiff of us being to big to fail about it, there still is.

Yeah, fuck it. I'm going to have to vote Labour because they were second to the Tories last time out in my area.

Tactical voting is fine in my opinion, your vote is to try and push the country your way as much as possible. I'm not even sure why moderate tories would want such dominance in Westminster as we dump the restraints of the EU.

 

[TimmmV]

To a large extent I agree - you can never get a single, holistic answer to such a complicated question in a referendum and even if you offered all the options it'd be unlikely any single one would get a majority and even if it did there's no guarantee we'd actually be able to obtain such a thing (if we voted to remain in the single market but not have FoM, for example, it's not something the EU would ever give us). I certainly concede this. However whilst some leavers were arguing for a Norwegian style system, some were arguing for a hard Brexit. In fact, the governments' own leaflet trying to convince everyone to vote remain was mostly - in an economic sense - arguing against a hard Brexit, as it was extolling the virtues of our presence in the single market, and talking about how great it is that we can all go around Europe and get jobs without a visa. It was by no means a unified front from the leavers, but fundamentally I struggle to believe (and I'm sort of pulling this out of my arse I suppose, but there we are) there are a lot of people who voted leave thinking we'd retain freedom of movement, single market membership etc. If you wanted all that stuff, surely you'd vote remain? The distinction between, say, Norway's relationship and full membership is so absolutely minimal that I just find it hard to imagine any sizeable number of people going "Yeah, that's what I want, I'm voting out."

In that case though, you're ultimately advocating policy based on a vague feeling that its what a load of angry people kind of voted for (although, I really don't think Leave would have won had the electorate been told that there was absolutely no way of keeping single market membership. That by itself would have been >2% swing to Remain)

I dunno, I just really disagree with the idea that what is happening now is remotely what people voted for. It seems like only after the result are people actually bothering to think of the realities of the decision - people in general weren't really considering those before voting, because they weren't really mentioned.

I think many people forget the severity of the situation we were in at the time. The economy was at rock bottom - and i guess the Lib Dems saw it as an opportunity to take on some responsibility - which at the end of the day they did. Things had to get done. So i do admire them for that.

The tuition fees debacle was a complete fuck up, but i think without them we wouldn't have had rises in the amount you earn before tax (which helped me massively) amongst other social issues, as well as keeping the tories in check. Not saying it was all roses, but the state of Britain in 2011 (?) was pretty bleak.

But Austerity was the thing that ended up getting done, so they didn't really keep the Tories in check. As other posters have said, they also got played like a fiddle with electoral reform

Only talking anecdotally here, so it might be completely unrepresentative. But of the people I knew who voted Lib Dem in 2010, they were (mostly young, but not entirely) centre left people who had gotten tired of Labour but still really didn't want the Tories, so they voted Lib Dem, and ended up getting the Tories. I get that they were stuck in a hard place as by picking a side they inevitably end up alienating one wing of the tactical votes going for them, but think the Labour leaning side of that are much bigger than the Conservative leaning side.

And as shit as it was in 2011, I'd still take that over what we have now tbh. The recession was hard, but it was a global problem effecting everyone. Brexit is going to be a disaster, and is entirely a mess of our own making

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

That Daily Mail front page is quite something.

May can distance herself from this all she likes but this is the public perception of her and her actions that gets put out there. And through the papers the electorate will come to think of this as the correct way of thinking and course of action.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

BTW to put the Tim Farron is anti-gay stuff to bed:

http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1825800.html

Acting head of LGBT LDs on the topic.

Yes, that is indeed a pink and black colour scheme.

 

[Charles Brandon]

You're not right on FoM. McDonnell is actually relatively strongly opposed to freedom of movement. Historically, Corbyn doesn't seem to have had much opinion one way or the other, but leans against FoM as it stands because of the polling implications (this would be true of any Labour leader). You're thinking of Diane Abbott's stance, but she is neither the majority Labour position nor influential over this particular topic.

Labour's position on the single market is: we would vote for the single market if we could have it without freedom of movement, because that's the position that suits all parts of their base... but this isn't a 'real' position, because fundamentally you simply can't have the single market without freedom of movement. Polling consistently shows the British electorate would chose no single market over no freedom of movement, and any party that seriously aspires to a majority understands that. So Labour's 'real' stance is something like: try and make as much information publicly available as possible about the Brexit process, until then, make noises about the importance of single market while not drawing attention by being seen to be blocking Brexit.

You have to understand this forum represents a small minority of the electorate - liberal, metropolitan, relatively well-off (gaming is expensive), with an international exposure. Even most Remainers now think Brexit should go ahead (not the same as saying they think it will be good). The vast majority of the British public want an end to FoM - even Remainers! It's not like this is a battleground issue. The battle is, realistically, over, and there's about 20% of the electorate who keep trying to hold a frontline lost last year. That's the 20% the Lib Dems are courting.

Realistically, the best case scenario for the Lib Dems is that they sneak seats off the Conservatives and Labour holds stronger than expected, hung parliament, and they get in for a coalition. But neither major party is going to go for single market. If the Lib Dems trying making them do that, they'll become 'enemy of the people' faster than you can rush the Mail to the press. Best case scenario, the Liberal Democrats would push the Conservatives from 'fuck the EU'-style exit to 'keep a lot of trading links' style exit. But that... is Labour's policy right now.

Which is what I mean. Even if you vote Lib Dem and even if they get in government, you'll get the same policy as you'd get under a Labour government. But the Liberal Democrats are even less likely to get into government than Labour are. So the whole thing is pointless.

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong. I really get the importance of having outriders on public opinion who fight for lost causes in the hope that over the long-haul, you change people's minds. In any constituency that's not a marginal, be my guest, vote for the Liberal Democrats. But if you're in a Lab-Con marginal... it just has backfire written all over it.

With respect Crab, I think I am right about Corbyn and FOM

https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...my-corbyn-and-tom-watson-split-eu-immigration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570383

pre-referendum, it was all he could say in support of voting remain. He is a supporter of freedom of movement because he is an internationalist who doesn't believe in borders. He is opposed to the EU because he believes it is anathema to his socialist principles

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...y-EU-Past-Eurosceptic-Views-on-European-Union

Yes, he has recently bowed to political expediency and taken up different positions on these matters but that's not the same as having a conviction and it shows every time he is forced to engage with the issue.

Personally, I am resigned to brexit but hopeful that a soft-brexit is still very much on the cards. I believe that a deal can be done and that many European politicians would be in favour of such a deal (with some notable exceptions like Manfred Weber). The biggest obstacle to that deal is the belligerent and antagonistic approach taken by May so far in proceedings, therefore any movement that may reduce her implied mandate on that issue, like a vote for the lib-dems, is OK with me. However I am also a Labour Party member and I support my local MP (Rupa Huq - who may be in a three way close fight) so I'm conflicted.

 

[jelly]

Didn't know that about Tim Farron being all god and stuff.

I knew May was into God and all that, daughter of a victor too I think.

Not really the types I care for in politics.

 

[Übermatik]

Would it be glum for me to assume that little can be done to stop a Tory landslide? I'm set to vote in hope of otherwise, but it seems that this situation is a sum of it's parts - a wind up from a decade of cock-ups.

That is to say, I hardly expect a sudden turn-around. People are jaded and misinformed, and there's little in the way of a reliable opposition.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Would it be glum for me to assume that little can be done to stop a Tory landslide? I'm set to vote in hope of otherwise, but it seems that this situation is a sum of it's parts - a wind up from a decade of cock-ups.

That is to say, I hardly expect a sudden turn-around. People are jaded and misinformed, and there's little in the way of a reliable opposition.

It's nailed on.

 

[Filthy Casual]

It's the time of the unexpected, Corbyn will do it let's go!

 

[Miles Quaritch]

That Daily Mail front page is quite something.

May can distance herself from this all she likes but this is the public perception of her and her actions that gets put out there. And through the papers the electorate will come to think of this as the correct way of thinking and course of action.

The Daily Mail has always been a piece of rag, but they've really upped their cuntery in the last few years.

I don't know if that's in direct response to the threat they feel from the The Sun or if they feel the regulations are such that they can do whatever the fuck they like and not be punished, but they've really gone off the rails in recent years. It's like Alex Jones if he ever hit the mainstream and never had to admit he's a lying yeast infected cuntwaffle..

 

[Deleted member 231381]

With respect Crab, I think I am right about Corbyn and FOM

https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...my-corbyn-and-tom-watson-split-eu-immigration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570383

I mean long-run. Corbyn's stance on this issue is really confused. If you look at statements from across his political career, he's complained about FoM in the past - as recently in a 2009 article criticising the EU for allow free flows of capital and people. He then 'converts' for the referendum (your quotes above) - but then the conversion doesn't last very long, and he'd become neutral about a week after your quotes.

This is why I say: I don't think Corbyn has any strong stance on FoM. It's just not something he cares about.

He is a supporter of freedom of movement because he is an internationalist who doesn't believe in borders.

Definitely not true (on not believing in borders). Socialists of Corbyn's tendency are usually not in favour of open borders. As a litmus test, compare the views of the 'senior' Momentumites - they see freedom of movement as a means for the capital class to undermine the position of the proletarian by flooding the market with cheap labour.

Yes, he has recently bowed to political expediency and taken up different positions on these matters but that's not the same as having a conviction and it shows every time he is forced to engage with the issue.

In that respect, agreed - although I think it's because Corbyn has no clear conviction. I don't think he's an especially intellectually curious person, and I think he likes have a piece of dogma to follow. The trouble is the EU kind of 'defies' dogma on the left - you have everything from Lexit to federalists all proclaiming themselves to be more-socialist-than-thou. Accordingly, I think Corbyn's main position is to sort of... ignore the whole thing, or do whatever those close to him pressure him to do.

Personally, I am resigned to brexit but hopeful that a soft-brexit is still very much on the cards.

With respect, I think you're very much wrong. I wish it were otherwise, but any soft-Brexit is conditional on freedom of movement, which the British electorate have overwhelming rejected.

 

[King_Moc]

With respect, I think you're very much wrong. I wish it were otherwise, but any soft-Brexit is conditional on freedom of movement, which the British electorate have overwhelming rejected.

It was 52-48.

 

[CyclopsRock]

In that case though, you're ultimately advocating policy based on a vague feeling that its what a load of angry people kind of voted for (although, I really don't think Leave would have won had the electorate been told that there was absolutely no way of keeping single market membership. That by itself would have been >2% swing to Remain)

I dunno, I just really disagree with the idea that what is happening now is remotely what people voted for. It seems like only after the result are people actually bothering to think of the realities of the decision - people in general weren't really considering those before voting, because they weren't really mentioned.

Given that 'remain' was the status quo, the only thing we know for sure is that a majority of people didn't want that, they wanted to leave. I just can't conjure up in my head a picture of someone who voted for us to leave the EU but wanted us to have Norwegian style membership. What does this person look like? It's like an AFC Wimbledon fan petitioning their board to re-locate to Milton Keynes. So I don't think it's really a "vague feeling of how angry people voted", it's the course of action that seems most in line with how I think people felt (which is to say, there's no other course of action that I think better aligns with how people feel and, in our sad world of linear time and space, we can only pursue a single course of action).

 

[PJV3]

That Daily Mail front page is quite something.

May can distance herself from this all she likes but this is the public perception of her and her actions that gets put out there. And through the papers the electorate will come to think of this as the correct way of thinking and course of action.

Isn't she in quite deep with the Mail and Dacre? Recent Tories seem to have hitched up with Murdoch and people around him, she has gone down the Daily Mail route.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

With respect, I think you're very much wrong. I wish it were otherwise, but any soft-Brexit is conditional on freedom of movement, which the British electorate have overwhelming rejected.

If the Lib Dems won 50% of the vote on a Remain manifesto, it'd be absurd for them to have to listen to a referendum older than their own mandate. As that's absurd we have to believe that the mandate for the referendum runs out on the day of the General. At that time the manifesto mandate will be what the government bases their legitimacy on.

The public will be voting again on Brexit, no matter what the Tories want to believe.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Isn't she in quite deep with the Mail and Dacre? Recent Tories seem to have hitched up with Murdoch and people around him, she has gone down the Daily Mail route.

The Mail likes her, I don't think she's really "in" with anyone in the Cameron or Blair sense.

 

[kmag]

With respect Crab, I think I am right about Corbyn and FOM

https://www.politicshome.com/news/e...my-corbyn-and-tom-watson-split-eu-immigration

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570383

pre-referendum, it was all he could say in support of voting remain. He is a supporter of freedom of movement because he is an internationalist who doesn't believe in borders. He is opposed to the EU because he believes it is anathema to his socialist principles

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...y-EU-Past-Eurosceptic-Views-on-European-Union

Yes, he has recently bowed to political expediency and taken up different positions on these matters but that's not the same as having a conviction and it shows every time he is forced to engage with the issue.

Personally, I am resigned to brexit but hopeful that a soft-brexit is still very much on the cards. I believe that a deal can be done and that many European politicians would be in favour of such a deal (with some notable exceptions like Manfred Weber). The biggest obstacle to that deal is the belligerent and antagonistic approach taken by May so far in proceedings, therefore any movement that may reduce her implied mandate on that issue, like a vote for the lib-dems, is OK with me. However I am also a Labour Party member and I support my local MP (Rupa Huq - who may be in a three way close fight) so I'm conflicted.

Corbyn would be relatively ok with the EU if it allowed the state to easily nationalise companies (or to run nationalised companies) without falling prey to anti state aid provisions. For a lot on the left that (and the rather baffling misuse of Greece as cudgel) is the main issue. Freedom of Movement is an issue on the left because despite most socialists being 'internationalists' they're internationalists who'd prefer it if workers stayed put in the same power structures they've always been in, because only those power structures (i.e the organisation of labour against the capitalists) can protect the working man, and if people move about it breaks those structures (hence you occasionally get the freedom of movement of labour but only between unionised jobs) and allows the capitalists to undercut the working man with cheap external labour.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It was 52-48.

This is my point. This forum doesn't seem to understand this: most people who voted remain say they want soft-Brexit. But what they understand to be soft-Brexit isn't what you understand to be soft-Brexit. They think soft-Brexit is: we stay in the single market, but don't have freedom of movement. That's a popular choice - but it is impossible.

When you start asking people: do you want to stay in the single market if it means freedom of movement, or leave fully, people overwhelmingly choose leave fully. That includes a large portion of Remainers.

"Hard Remainers" are about 20% of the electorate.

EDIT: 26%, to be precise. See page 9: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...70ift0nyl/InternalResults_161114_Europe_W.pdf

 

[PJV3]

The Mail likes her, I don't think she's really "in" with anyone in the Cameron or Blair sense.

Fair enough, I just thought she had taken on Mail staff to run her press office, Im probably reading more into hiring people from that loony paper than I should.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Isn't she in quite deep with the Mail and Dacre? Recent Tories seem to have hitched up with Murdoch and people around him, she has gone down the Daily Mail route.

She seems more aligned with The Telegraph than the Mail. She wrote a column in today's edition .

 

[Maledict]

This is my point. This forum doesn't seem to understand this: most people who voted remain say they want soft-Brexit. But what they understand to be soft-Brexit isn't what you understand to be soft-Brexit. They think soft-Brexit is: we stay in the single market, but don't have freedom of movement. That's a popular choice - but it is impossible.

When you start asking people: do you want to stay in the single market if it means freedom of movement, or leave fully, people overwhelmingly choose leave fully. That includes a large portion of Remainers.

"Hard Remainers" are about 20% of the electorate.

Do you have the figures on that btw crab? Don't doubt you but want the numbers to hand.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you have the figures on that btw crab? Don't doubt you but want the numbers to hand.

I actually edited just as you were saying that!

 

[TimmmV]

Given that 'remain' was the status quo, the only thing we know for sure is that a majority of people didn't want that, they wanted to leave. I just can't conjure up in my head a picture of someone who voted for us to leave the EU but wanted us to have Norwegian style membership. What does this person look like? It's like an AFC Wimbledon fan petitioning their board to re-locate to Milton Keynes. So I don't think it's really a "vague feeling of how angry people voted", it's the course of action that seems most in line with how I think people felt (which is to say, there's no other course of action that I think better aligns with how people feel and, in our sad world of linear time and space, we can only pursue a single course of action).

I agree that this imagined person/demographic shouldn't exist, but it was one that the Leave campaigned bothered to spend a significant amount of time/resources chasing, so don't think its unreasonable to assume that in reality they do.

But yeah, maybe it depends on how rational you feel the Leave voters were acting at the time. It seems to me it was more a "fuck everything and fuck you" sentiment that ended up winning, with no real thought of the consequences as opposed to a rational thought about the reality of what leaving actually entails

 

[Ravensmash]

BTW to put the Tim Farron is anti-gay stuff to bed:

http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1825800.html

Acting head of LGBT LDs on the topic.

Yes, that is indeed a pink and black colour scheme.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Uzzy]

The Mail likes her, I don't think she's really "in" with anyone in the Cameron or Blair sense.

For now. They'll turn on her before the end.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

PMQs is a bloodbath so far. Corbyn is being ripped apart.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I mean long-run. Corbyn's stance on this issue is really confused. If you look at statements from across his political career, he's complained about FoM in the past - as recently in a 2009 article criticising the EU for allow free flows of capital and people. He then 'converts' for the referendum (your quotes above) - but then the conversion doesn't last very long, and he'd become neutral about a week after your quotes.

This is why I say: I don't think Corbyn has any strong stance on FoM. It's just not something he cares about.



Definitely not true (on not believing in borders). Socialists of Corbyn's tendency are usually not in favour of open borders. As a litmus test, compare the views of the 'senior' Momentumites - they see freedom of movement as a means for the capital class to undermine the position of the proletarian by flooding the market with cheap labour.

I think this sums up the socialist attitude to immigration previously adhered to by JC

WHAT WE THINK

Stand united—and don’t let the bosses’ myths divide us
The Labour right identified immigration as a key issue to undermine Jeremy Corbyn long ago. On Tuesday they made their breakthrough.

He bent to the claims that migrant labour “undercuts” workers’ wages. There’s no evidence that migrants are to blame for falling wages.

In fact in the construction industry—which Corbyn singled out as a sector where migrants are used to drive down pay—wages are actually rising. Average weekly earnings in construction rose in every month last year.

In other industries where wages are falling it’s not because migrants are “undercutting” other workers. It’s because bosses have forced through pay cuts and wage freezes for years and trade union organisation is too weak.

The only way to stop this is if workers stand together and fight to stop bosses’ attacks. Blaming one group of workers for undercutting another makes that task harder.

Fighting for a £10 an hour minimum wage for all workers—which Corbyn has also rightly called for—and making sure it is strongly enforced—is a much better way to take on low-paying bosses.

Demands such as this, fought for in workplaces and on the streets, should be at the centre of a left wing programme for Brexit.

Unfortunately Corbyn’s only reason for not completely dropping his commitment to free movement is remaining in the bosses’ single market. This single market doesn’t protect workers at all—its rules prevent nationalisation and have been used to stop strikes.

Corbyn’s new “left wing populism” won’t succeed by pandering to bosses and the racist right. It has to be based on fighting to defend all workers—wherever they’re from. Corbyn’s victory as Labour leader gave us all a boost. We must push to reverse this retreat.

From the Socialist Worker - reacting to Corbyn's pivot

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43923/No+to+retreat+on+freedom+of+movement

On soft-brexit and the FOM conundrum - my opinion is that there is more wiggle room that people think. People did not expressly vote against immigration per se, 'control' was he word that was most often used. I reckon you can increase 'control' whilst still allowing FOM to remain in place in practice, subject to UK control. I think there is a compromise/fudge to be made in that space. I admit,it's a long shot.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

From the Socialist Worker - reacting to Corbyn's pivot

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43923/No+to+retreat+on+freedom+of+movement

With respect, I can guarantee you I can find you a socialist paper arguing the exact opposite, which is my point - the EU doesn't fit neatly into socialist dogma, which is an enormous problem for a very dogmatic man. As a random example:

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk...actually-means-free-exploitation#.WPdIXFKZOi5

This uncertainty extends even to Corbyn's allies. McDonnell is a Morning Star socialist - he has a long history of opposing freedom of movement. Diane Abbott a Socialist Worker socialist - she's vehemently in favour. Corbyn is adrift.

On soft-brexit and the FOM conundrum - my opinion is that there is more wiggle room that people think. People did not expressly vote against immigration per se, 'control' was he word that was most often used. I reckon you can increase 'control' whilst still allowing FOM to remain in place in practice, subject to UK control. I think there is a compromise/fudge to be made in that space. I admit,it's a long shot.

I mean. All the evidence points to this not being the case, but best of luck - entirely sincerely.

 

[King_Moc]

This is my point. This forum doesn't seem to understand this: most people who voted remain say they want soft-Brexit. But what they understand to be soft-Brexit isn't what you understand to be soft-Brexit. They think soft-Brexit is: we stay in the single market, but don't have freedom of movement. That's a popular choice - but it is impossible.

When you start asking people: do you want to stay in the single market if it means freedom of movement, or leave fully, people overwhelmingly choose leave fully. That includes a large portion of Remainers.

"Hard Remainers" are about 20% of the electorate.

EDIT: 26%, to be precise. See page 9: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...70ift0nyl/InternalResults_161114_Europe_W.pdf

It looks to me like you're cherry picking some fairly irrelevant data. Page 1 has all you need and shows remain and leave to be about even, as ever.

 

[Juicy Bob]

I've managed to get my parents back in Australia to register to vote using me as a proxy.

Just a thought for migrants or the family of any British migrants who were previously registered to vote since 2002.