Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 8, 2022 21:45:02 GMT
Danny The reason we had lockdown was to allow time for a strategy to be developed. That strategy was either vaccine or eradication. Luckily we got a vaccine. The vaccine really doesnt work to prevent spread of covid, and there seems to be consensus eradication is impossible. So where does that leave us aside from having a trillion pound bill? And actually the numbers dying now with covid despite the great majority having been vaccinated arent really so very good compared to the average death rate in 2020. To what extent these people are dying from covid or with covid remains unclear, and always has been. I had covid in 2019, and so did thousands of others. Millions had covid in spring 2020, with minimum numbers based on zoe sampling being around 5 million, but upper bound could be well above that. I have not had any vaccines, my partner has had three. We both had covid again this spring, as demonstrated by testing. It was milder than when we had it 2019 but otherwise similar, no loss of taste this time. Just as then, he was sicker than me....despite his three vaccinations. Thats a pathetic vaccination. I don't propose making anyone catch covid. I proposed not making them stay in their homes for fear of criminal sanctions. Thats very different. However, all the evidence is that two waves of covid died out because we achieved herd immunity to them. The lockdowns didnt do anything to stop that. What most likely seems to have happened is tens of millions of people caught covid in the first wave, most of whom went unrecorded. This was enough to suppress spread, not the lockdowns. And that was probably to plan, the more astute SAGE people will have realised those strains of covid had already done their worst. What however no one bargained for was the speed with which covid can mutate and reinfect. Vaccination of the high risk, who are the only ones really needing vaccination or justifying lockdown intervention, were completed early 2021. After that all interventions were pointless. I'm not saying additional vaccines were useless, a vaccine is relatively cheap so probably net benefit from the campaign. But in no way could the very very costly lockdown interventions be justified to continue after the high risk had already been vaccinated. That was just political posturing. trying to look like they were doing some good, when really they were doing the opposite as we see now. This recession just getting started was created by lockdowns.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 8, 2022 21:49:27 GMT
I find that Trump is soon to arrive in Scotland for a few days holiday playing golf. www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/donald-trump-jet-scotland-holiday-27675776When he last came to Scotland in 2018 for 2 days, the security cost to Scotland`s police was £3.5 million, which had to paid by the Scottish Government. So it is probable that the cost this time will be greater. I don`t believe that this wretched individual should be allowed into the UK, but if Johnson is content to allow the visit against the clear wishes of the elected Scottish government, then the cost should be met by the UK government, Why doesn't Trump pay for it? I can see that someone from UK would provide security for a visiting Head of State, but he isn't. Perhaps he is paying?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 8, 2022 21:50:32 GMT
jib While I agree with you regarding vaccination. It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of both vaccinated and unvaccinated people who have contracted covid didn't get significantly ill. I heard a news item the other day reporting an NHS statement which sounded pretty much like that for monkey pox. So does that mean monkey pox is in reality just as dangerous as covid and warrants another two years of lockdown, or covid being no more dangerous than monkey pox never warranted lockdown either?
Is the difference in reality that politicians now realise their chosen reaction to covid was soooo expensive that we could not possible do the same now even if a new disease turns up which really is more dangerous than covid?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2022 21:51:28 GMT
I find that Trump is soon to arrive in Scotland for a few days holiday playing golf. www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/donald-trump-jet-scotland-holiday-27675776When he last came to Scotland in 2018 for 2 days, the security cost to Scotland`s police was £3.5 million, which had to paid by the Scottish Government. So it is probable that the cost this time will be greater. I don`t believe that this wretched individual should be allowed into the UK, but if Johnson is content to allow the visit against the clear wishes of the elected Scottish government, then the cost should be met by the UK government, Don’t see why he deserves any.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 8, 2022 21:57:00 GMT
I suspect this is roughly in line with where we will end up if not by October, but January. Whilst I very much doubt the Government will maintain the existing cap, they may limit it to £3,000 and freeze that for 12 months. There isn't really another viable (and politically acceptable) solution. The cap was never designed to limit the shock of rising prices hitting consumers. All it was intended to do was limit the excess profits of energy reatailers. Its a terrible way to subsidise energy, because the bill comes out of the pockets of those retail companies, with the obvious result that any without huge financial backing went bust. The government has in effect taken out vast loans by extorting them from the surviving retailers, and used those to subsidise prices.
Thats hardly fair. And what isnt fair on us is all the little companies who went bust who were the only real competition preventing those big companies simply fleecing us. The system intended to prevent that happening by intervention has instead ensured there will be no competition in the retail market once this is all over. In the long run, those government loans will be repaid to the electricity companies by billing it to their customers, and then the companies can go back to fleecing us freed from competition.
That debt repayment is being dumped into the standing charge. Thereby ensuring the poor will repay the bill run up by the rich.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 8, 2022 21:59:32 GMT
You are domjg and I claim my 10 euros. colin , not quite sure what you mean by that. However, together with a couple of my friends, you are people who confirm that I am not totally biased in my thoughts re the Tory party. They have both come out recently saying that they couldn't vote Tory now and a number of your posts in the past month or so have almost suggested that you would consider voting Lab. Thanks fellow Pete. I lol at your last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 8, 2022 22:21:30 GMT
The House is still looking likely to go Republican; the polls have narrowed slightly in recent weeks, tho some of that is real shift and a bit due to the timing of who reports when. When did that happen? Not been paying attention but I thought the House was definitely staying Dem and the Senate was the issue- and hadn't occurred to me it might not. They don't seem to have many specific House district polls so I assume they have something equivalent to an MRP? shevii - I don't know the answer to your last question, I had presumed it was UNS based on the Generic Congressional Ballot measure (basically our "GE tomorrow" headline VI). That won't be individually perfect of course, but given the scale of the constituencies (each House seat covers the population of roughly 7 Westminister constituencies) as well as how many are outright safe anyway regardless of the political weather, and having only a two year electoral term, I suspect there's rather less scope for demographic change to affect seat outcomes from one election to the next than there is in the UK. Incumbency on the other hand is taken as a big wildcard against generic polling - an incumbent who stands down (or loses in the primary) gives the potential double effect of losing the established name recognition and the possibility that the primary will pick a badly flawed candidate. On the first question - the presumption has been Republican gain for a while. The Dems' House majority was cut to just 9 in the 2020 election, and from there they'd need to completely neutralise the usual tendency for mid-terms to swing towards the party that don't hold the White House. And the polls in recent months have tended to show the Republicans with a decent if unspectacular swing towards them. Tho as I've flagged previously, there is a lot of variation between groups of pollsters, with some showing the Dems consistently leading by smallish margins and others tending to show big Republican leads, and a few others sitting somewhere in between. It's still quite early days (primaries still going on in various places and voter attention tends to ramp up dramatically in September and October) but the overall House polling feels a bit like the 2017 GE in the UK - as it stands then whatever the result, at least one group of pollsters are going to miss by quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Aug 8, 2022 22:31:39 GMT
Sky paper review - CBI speaking out about the absent government, Harry Cole, Sun political editor making negative comments about the government and the Tory leader candidates. If these two people from the right are making such comments, how on earth can the Tory poll % be increasing.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 8, 2022 22:47:34 GMT
oldnat - from reading those Rayner quotes I'm not sure it's all that clumsy. First off, the "Brexit was enough for me" argument might well chime with some Scottish voters of mild opinion either way on the 2014 vote who found some frustration in the extent to which the referendum campaign dominated politics for a considerable length of time, and then further so with the Brexit referendum. And the "left behind" argument is an interesting note. It sounds rather like one invoked by Spanish nationalists against Catalan independence - the idea that there's a moral dimension that goes beyond mere local political will. We're together now, and one affluent part shouldn't just abscond to enjoy their wealth and leave the rest of us to care for the poorer areas. *If* that's where she's going with that, and it's complete speculation on my part that it is, it would certainly be an interesting pivot from the usual "Scotland can't afford it anyway!" line from Westminster. As for "Perpetual Conservatism at Westminster" - she's surely right that without Scottish MPs (of whatever stripe) the Westminster parliament would be quite significantly more conservative (small c) than it is now? The fact she said "conservatism" rather than eg "Tory rule" suggests to me she's talking about the ideological impact rather than the spectre of endless Tory election wins.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 8, 2022 22:54:38 GMT
oldnat - from reading those Rayner quotes I'm not sure it's all that clumsy. First off, the "Brexit was enough for me" argument might well chime with some Scottish voters of mild opinion either way on the 2014 vote who found some frustration in the extent to which the referendum campaign dominated politics for a considerable length of time, and then further so with the Brexit referendum. And the "left behind" argument is an interesting note. It sounds rather like one invoked by Spanish nationalists against Catalan independence - the idea that there's a moral dimension that goes beyond mere local political will. We're together now, and one affluent part shouldn't just abscond to enjoy their wealth and leave the rest of us to care for the poorer areas. *If* that's where she's going with that, and it's complete speculation on my part that it is, it would certainly be an interesting pivot from the usual "Scotland can't afford it anyway!" line from Westminster. As for "Perpetual Conservatism at Westminster" - she's surely right that without Scottish MPs (of whatever stripe) the Westminster parliament would be quite significantly more conservative (small c) than it is now? The fact she said "conservatism" rather than eg "Tory rule" suggests to me she's talking about the ideological impact rather than the spectre of endless Tory election wins. I think Rayner is rather stretching this point. Even in 2005 - when Labour's GB lead was only 3% in vote share- the party won most seats in England despite receiving fewer votes there. Moreover, when allowance is made for loss of Scotland Labour's lead in 2005 equates to circa 1% in terms of current polling.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 8, 2022 23:16:15 GMT
graham - again, "conservatism", rather than "Conservative/Tory". For decades Scotland has elected overwhelmingly LOC MPs to Westminster, and Scottish politics in recent times has been remarkable for the number of party leaders who have been able to be open about their sexuality. To take those MPs and those voters out of Westminster would undoubtedly make the remainder more conservative (small c!) and thus harder for people like Rayner to achieve what they want to do, both for their constituents and overall.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 8, 2022 23:51:01 GMT
graham - again, "conservatism", rather than "Conservative/Tory". For decades Scotland has elected overwhelmingly LOC MPs to Westminster, and Scottish politics in recent times has been remarkable for the number of party leaders who have been able to be open about their sexuality. To take those MPs and those voters out of Westminster would undoubtedly make the remainder more conservative (small c!) and thus harder for people like Rayner to achieve what they want to do, both for their constituents and overall. "For decades Scotland has elected overwhelmingly LOC MPs to Westminster"
No. Scotland elected Labour MPs. The equation of "Labour" meaning "Left of Centre" is one of the sillier repetitions on this board. Many of the SLab MPs were socially and economically rather conservative in their beliefs. Of course, they largely voted the party whip to support the Labour leadership to impose domestic policies in England, to overcome resistance from actual LoC Labour MPs representing English constituencies.
However, you are correct that removing a tranche of MPs from Scotland (whether SNP or Lab) would mean that English voters would be more likely to be rewarded with the sort of government that they want (though they usually get that anyway - whether through a Tory or Labour government).
It's "not nice" for English Labour MPs to force Scotland to remain in the UK Union (should it decide otherwise) in the hope of preventing English democracy.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 9, 2022 0:07:39 GMT
oldnat - from reading those Rayner quotes I'm not sure it's all that clumsy. First off, the "Brexit was enough for me" argument might well chime with some Scottish voters of mild opinion either way on the 2014 vote who found some frustration in the extent to which the referendum campaign dominated politics for a considerable length of time, and then further so with the Brexit referendum. And the "left behind" argument is an interesting note. It sounds rather like one invoked by Spanish nationalists against Catalan independence - the idea that there's a moral dimension that goes beyond mere local political will. We're together now, and one affluent part shouldn't just abscond to enjoy their wealth and leave the rest of us to care for the poorer areas. *If* that's where she's going with that, and it's complete speculation on my part that it is, it would certainly be an interesting pivot from the usual "Scotland can't afford it anyway!" line from Westminster. As for "Perpetual Conservatism at Westminster" - she's surely right that without Scottish MPs (of whatever stripe) the Westminster parliament would be quite significantly more conservative (small c) than it is now? The fact she said "conservatism" rather than eg "Tory rule" suggests to me she's talking about the ideological impact rather than the spectre of endless Tory election wins. Since any indy referendum (should it occur) would be an entirely Scots one, those in rUK should be even less involved than the EU was in 2016, since the result would not bind the sovereign UK Parliament, so her views are somewhat irrelevant. Those in Scotland who don't wish indyref2 fought the 2021 Scottish GE on that basis - and lost.
The obsession with a referendum is odd, since the ground rules have been changed. It's often hard for people (on both sides) to resile from using outdated arguments.
As to your "interesting pivot", the Tories have been using that for a while. The "too wee, too poor" line has inevitably run its course, when it could no longer be used solely in Scotland, and caused some in England to resent the "English taxpayer" subsidising these scroungers. Now it has become "we" are going to lose all these resources, if "they" leave and take what would be "theirs" (but should be "ours" - the Putin argument for the Ukrainian wheat fields).
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 9, 2022 0:35:11 GMT
STV have now reported Rayner's comments.
news.stv.tv/politics/labours-angela-rayner-sets-out-opposition-to-second-indyref
Same as the National, so no misreporting.
There would seem to be a conflict between the idea that the UK Parliament needs to have a less conservative membership, but for Labour “It’s not a possibility that we would work with the SNP".
Of course, any party would like to win outright, but if UKLab doesn't want to work with others who share some views, then its just posturing to claim that forcing Scotland to remain in the UK Union (should its voters decide otherwise) is something to do with having a less conservative HoC.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 9, 2022 0:46:46 GMT
oldnat - from reading those Rayner quotes I'm not sure it's all that clumsy. First off, the "Brexit was enough for me" argument might well chime with some Scottish voters of mild opinion either way on the 2014 vote who found some frustration in the extent to which the referendum campaign dominated politics for a considerable length of time, and then further so with the Brexit referendum. And the "left behind" argument is an interesting note. It sounds rather like one invoked by Spanish nationalists against Catalan independence - the idea that there's a moral dimension that goes beyond mere local political will. We're together now, and one affluent part shouldn't just abscond to enjoy their wealth and leave the rest of us to care for the poorer areas. *If* that's where she's going with that, and it's complete speculation on my part that it is, it would certainly be an interesting pivot from the usual "Scotland can't afford it anyway!" line from Westminster. As for "Perpetual Conservatism at Westminster" - she's surely right that without Scottish MPs (of whatever stripe) the Westminster parliament would be quite significantly more conservative (small c) than it is now? The fact she said "conservatism" rather than eg "Tory rule" suggests to me she's talking about the ideological impact rather than the spectre of endless Tory election wins. Since any indy referendum (should it occur) would be an entirely Scots one, those in rUK should be even less involved than the EU was in 2016, since the result would not bind the sovereign UK Parliament, so her views are somewhat irrelevant.A pity you didn't add this rider a couple of hours ago when you started this discussion by openly inviting speculation as to the motivation of her views; we could probably both have done more productive things with the time.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 9, 2022 1:42:37 GMT
... Tho as I've flagged previously, there is a lot of variation between groups of pollsters, with some showing the Dems consistently leading by smallish margins and others tending to show big Republican leads, and a few others sitting somewhere in between. It's still quite early days (primaries still going on in various places and voter attention tends to ramp up dramatically in September and October) but the overall House polling feels a bit like the 2017 GE in the UK - as it stands then whatever the result, at least one group of pollsters are going to miss by quite a bit. Didnt someone just post about the referendum to change state constitution to remove rights to abortion? Where there was a surprise surge for those rights, particularly amongst women? Its an issue which could cut through normal polling and leave the representative samples not so representative. Rather like Brexit. If these two people from the right are making such comments, how on earth can the Tory poll % be increasing. Simple mathematics would say if you replace someone intensely disliked by someone mildly disliked, your popularity has improved.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 9, 2022 1:58:34 GMT
... Tho as I've flagged previously, there is a lot of variation between groups of pollsters, with some showing the Dems consistently leading by smallish margins and others tending to show big Republican leads, and a few others sitting somewhere in between. It's still quite early days (primaries still going on in various places and voter attention tends to ramp up dramatically in September and October) but the overall House polling feels a bit like the 2017 GE in the UK - as it stands then whatever the result, at least one group of pollsters are going to miss by quite a bit. Didnt someone just post about the referendum to change state constitution to remove rights to abortion? Where there was a surprise surge for those rights, particularly amongst women? Its an issue which could cut through normal polling and leave the representative samples not so representative. Rather like Brexit. But Brexit didn't do that - it completely upended polling. Remember those polls around the 2019 Euro elections where Farage and the LibDems were fighting for first? Or those extraordinary Scottish polls after the referendum in 2014 when the SNP looked like winning almost every seat? Polling responds, that's why we all bother :-)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 9, 2022 4:51:19 GMT
I think the slight up tick in Tory polling probably is representative of the overwhelmingly Tory centric coverage of their internal selection of our prime minister.
For those less interested in politics than us this gives the impression that they're the only political party that counts.
I suspect the improvement relates to losing the now electorally toxic Spaffer,nothing more, as events unfold and the latest iteration of Tory ineptitude proves woefully inadequate I expect their ratings to nose dive.
Worth noting even on most optimistic recent polling the Tories would lose over 100 seats.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Aug 9, 2022 5:12:29 GMT
That Sunak campaign ‘shredding’ video. 😆 Is it too fanciful to think the end shot of the shredded EU paperwork is meant to remind us of Johnson’s deliberately unruly mop? 🙂
I suppose if the bloke you’ve done a job on won’t endorse you but you need his supporters to believe you are his heir on Brexit, then the next best thing is a pile of shredded paper delicately assembled to mimic the real thing.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 9, 2022 5:17:28 GMT
oldnat I mentioned before the inclination to regard only your favourite party as the genuine article and in the case of you and the SNP the only genuine progressive left of centre party in Scotland. It clearly isn't and it's a nonsense just as it is in England with the far left to pretend somehow that Labour is right wing simply because they disagree in this incidence on secession. Similarly while I despair of Labour's leadership current position on Brexit and fptp, it doesn't mean I think they are Tories, it just happens that locally I have a better fit party for my politics who stand a chance of electoral victory under fptp here. I think you've made it abundantly clear that you would prefer removing Scotland from the U.K. that doesn't require that you lump all U.K. wide parties that disagree into an amorphous pro union blob. By the way I may have been mistaken but did you suggest that a referendum in Scotland should just be for the Scottish? How is this even possible given that no one currently holds Scottish nationality, iro 20% of the population of Scotland were born in other parts of the UK and iro 20% born in Scotland live in England. Not a criticism just wondering how you think it might work?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 9, 2022 5:19:40 GMT
Dave Welcome nice to see a new poster. Shame Brexit can't be reversed by use of a comb!
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Aug 9, 2022 5:36:53 GMT
Thanks Steve and also to Jim Jam who said hi after my one and only previous post.
Brexit. I don’t want to reignite this 🙂 but as I’m new to this town, I’ll just say where I am on it. I’ll be honest Steve - I didn’t vote in the referendum - it was just two crappy versions of Conservatism as far as I was concerned. Is it working out? No. Will it work out? I very much doubt it. Should it be over-turned? No. Not yet at least. It has to play out, otherwise a big chunk of the country will forever say/ believe that it would have been fine and dandy if it hadn’t been taken away from them.
I understand that could cause years of pain potentially but the alternative - people feeling like democracy can easily be overturned, / they are ignored, etc would cause damage beyond economic damage.
Anyway, you’re ex-Met. Me too - police staff, and proud of it, for thirty years before Osborne and co showed us the door.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 9, 2022 5:54:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 9, 2022 6:19:52 GMT
Sky paper review - CBI speaking out about the absent government, Harry Cole, Sun political editor making negative comments about the government and the Tory leader candidates. If these two people from the right are making such comments, how on earth can the Tory poll % be increasing. I'm not sure that the Tory VI has been increasing in the polls has it? Some maybe within MOE twitches in a couple but no change in Opinium and an increased Labour lead in You Gov, two pollsters who are usually the kindest to the Tories and less flattering for Labour. As Graham said, these are typically times (parliamentary recess and media focus on a leadership contest) when a governing party gets some polling relief. In that context, I see no real rallying to the Tories at all.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 9, 2022 6:32:55 GMT
Didnt someone just post about the referendum to change state constitution to remove rights to abortion? Where there was a surprise surge for those rights, particularly amongst women? Its an issue which could cut through normal polling and leave the representative samples not so representative. Rather like Brexit. But Brexit didn't do that - it completely upended polling. Remember those polls around the 2019 Euro elections where Farage and the LibDems were fighting for first? Or those extraordinary Scottish polls after the referendum in 2014 when the SNP looked like winning almost every seat? Polling responds, that's why we all bother :-) Hmm. My recollection is that it did. Personally I think the results in the last two elections were not well predicted and were all about swing based upon Brexit view. First one, labour was seen as the party which could maybe stop brexit and there was a surprise boost for labour. Second one the remainers could see labour wouldnt help them, whereas the leavers saw Johnson as their only chance. Lots of talk about corbyn, but it wasnt what really mattered. Labour never gave remainers a reason to vote for them so as to get remain. Thus the difference between labour's performance in the May and Johnson elections. I was pretty stunned after the referendum seeing analysis which said 85% of leavers believed there would be no cost to brexit. While the remaining 15% believed the cost was worth it. Whereas remainers even moreso believed there would be a cost. The difference between the two groups was so stunnng and clear cut. It implied only 7% of the nation really believed in brexit at any cost, and the rest either opposed it because of cost or believed there would be no cost. Thats how Cummings won, and the importance of the red bus pasted with lies about savings from brexit. It didnt matter the exact amount, the purpose was to create the impression there would at least be a break even following brexit, and then the remaining 25% or so of the population would vote to leave because they could ditch those foreigners without risk. I mentioned those numbers to someone recently who gasped, because its such a stark result. All this analysis about reasons given by leavers for their vote, its bunk. It missed the point that the economic argument gave them leave to decide for or against on other grounds, and then they chose leave to get rid of foreigners, or to make our own laws, or to give Cameron a bloody nose, or whatever. But the bottom line was and always is, the money matters most. All the evidence we have from by elections or euros is that when people dont see the result as causing a change of government, they vote based upon issues. So the referendum result was a protest vote, based upon the idea whatever the outcome it would not harm the economy. Leave voters will ultimately be fickle to the cause of Brexit if they come to see it as having hit them in the pocket. In this respect the trillion pound cost of lockdowns has been a godsend to the government, but the excuse is wearing thin. Voters might see lockdown as the excuse for bad performance now, but ultimately that doesnt matter either as the economy is going bad under con.
Lab in 2010 seemed hardly to try to defend allegations by con that lab had caused the 2008 crash. I never understood this at the time as I see that critical to why they lost. An irony that under con the economy has steadily moved from bad to worse. "Its the economy, stupid".
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 9, 2022 6:43:22 GMT
Dave While in principle I agree with that in respect of the Brexit referendum even if no one had changed their minds ( and there's plenty of evidence of bregretters) the demographics of the vote would imply that there would now be a significant remain majority as such a high percentage of brexitanians were old and have now died this will only get more apparent over time. In general we only leave 5 years between general elections it's difficult to argue with such a narrow margin in the first place and such an age range in voting that much over ten years would actually be remotely representative of current opinion. Over six years have already passed.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 9, 2022 6:56:18 GMT
oldnat Similarly while I despair of Labour's leadership current position on Brexit and fptp, it doesn't mean I think they are Tories, it just happens that locally I have a better fit party for my politics who stand a chance of electoral victory under fptp here. You mean the libs? On achieving what they had been seeking for 50 years, enough MPs to control the balance of power, they gave in and simply supported a con administration.
Now they might do things differently if such a situation recurs at the next election, and it is possble it will, though more likely SNP will be the kingmaker block.
However, on their record lab, con and libs have all failed to deliver what they promised to voters. Being less polite, the entire lot are a pack of liars who would say anything they dont believe in order to get power. Obviously, the SNP have not been tested in this same way of being offered a chance at the ministerial salaries or being deputy prime minister. As things stand, they seem the least tarnished, but they too have had some internal wrangles. The tale of two fish is not a pretty one. And yet they consistently enact socialist policies in a way labour failed to do when last given the chance. Hence I saw them placed by one of those political compass websites as left of labour. Although saying that both lab and con now are to the right in direction of travel of lab and con as they were ten years after WW2. Although again, divisions in the country were more stark then so they were moving from a much clearer left-right wealth and privilege divide towards one less so. Whereas latterly both parties have seen inequality increasing and halted their drive to greater equality.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 9, 2022 7:11:24 GMT
I understand that could cause years of pain potentially but the alternative - people feeling like democracy can easily be overturned, / they are ignored, etc would cause damage beyond economic damage. I dont think thats quite it. Democracy says a large third of the nation voted to leave the eu, while a small third voted to remain, while a slightly yet smaller third didnt vote at all. Pretty close result. Given such a slight largest minority margin to leave there would be nothing undemocratic about rejoining now since there is now a similar rejoin majority. Which is to say not a true majority at all, any more than there was a committed majority to leave. The fundamental problem is no decisive result either way. The previous remain vote, back in the 70s was it, had a very decisive remain result and so settled the question. if you recall, the leave campaign vowed this time that if they had lost by a margin similar to their victory, they would have right now been demanding a repeat referendum. They would not have given in, and nor do I as a remainer. If we have to rejoin, releave, rejoin again, then thats what we must do if democracy is to be respected. However having said that, I do agree over time the rejoin block will grow, and also that rejoining will be a slow process. But I also think that after losing the next election and assuming there is a stable full labour term thereafter, the following election will be about positioning the UK closer to the EU and could amount to a policy of establishing something like the EEA/swiss model, piecemeal joining to restore the core rights and quietly forget about the theoretical basis of Brexit which was sovereign independence. I think the rest of the EU would be more than happy to have the UK back as a non voting member, which is what this end result will amount to. Thats why Delors was so happy with the result, ultimately the EU wins. In its way, the EU is like China in that it is not bound by electoral cycles and can therefore plan decades ahead.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Aug 9, 2022 7:14:14 GMT
Over six years have already passed. Good point. Though most of those were consumed by con trying to find a way not to leave after all, before they gave up and put Johnson in as PM to carry the blame.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Aug 9, 2022 7:34:54 GMT
The polls showing a steadying of the Conservative VI is, IMO, all down to the pundits not asking the candidates for residence at Number 10 the correct question; which is of course: Will you be keeping the wallpaper?
|
|