|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 1, 2022 20:57:09 GMT
People have short memories and the Tories have a good majority. Even if they lose power, they'll be close next time. To which you can add that their friends control most of the media, they are funded at levels equal or greater than all other parties put together and, most importantly, they are currently the only choice on the right of British politics, whereas the centre/left vote is split multiple ways. Which is why the next non-conservative government must introduce proportional representation (I don't expect this to happen). Of course they won't, for the reason you give, it would only benefit the left-wing parties because they are split (I consider the Tories to be a centre party). Having said that, because of the influence of the much-maligned LibDems, they did hold the AV referendum. I know that to purists AV is not good enough, but it would have been a step in the right (meaning correct!) direction. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 1, 2022 21:03:31 GMT
carfrew
A little presumptuous of you to think you know how those of us campaigned for Labour in 2017 and 2019 conducted ourselves in exchanges with voters, or how much we understood the manifestos and policies or how we handled internally our misgivings about Corbyn. You have not the foggiest idea what we did, when and why. Your assumptions are self serving and prejudiced.
And what on earth does it matter what a few of us cranks say on a piddling and inconsequential forum like this? It's a bit of harmless fun that has as much to do with serious politics as Marge Proops agony column had to do with securing the marital harmony of her readers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 21:04:34 GMT
To which you can add that their friends control most of the media, they are funded at levels equal or greater than all other parties put together and, most importantly, they are currently the only choice on the right of British politics, whereas the centre/left vote is split multiple ways. Which is why the next non-conservative government must introduce proportional representation (I don't expect this to happen). Of course they won't, for the reason you give, it would only benefit the left-wing parties because they are split (I consider the Tories to be a centre party). Having said that, because of the influence of the much-maligned LibDems, they did hold the AV referendum. I know that to purists AV is not good enough, but it would have been a step in the right (meaning correct!) direction. They did. It didn't much enthuse the voters , and those that turned out said a big No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum#:~:text=The%20proposal%20to%20introduce%20AV,overseen%20by%20the%20Electoral%20Commission. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Sept 1, 2022 21:07:26 GMT
I have sympathy with this position. Most people probably expected the leader after Corbyn to be somewhat to the right of him. That made a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. What they did not expect was that he would become an acolyte of the Labour right. I've spoken about this previously but part of the reason why his lurch towards that ground has been difficult for many, is because that is not where he has ever been before. He had to change his own views and unnecessarily pick a side in a civil war that wasn't his fight. To make it worse, it meant directly disavowing the platform on which he stood for leader. There are those who say, so what? As long as he takes Labour to power it would have been worth it. That any Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, and anyway what right minded left of centre voter could stand by and let this Tory government win again? That view has its merits. However, many of the same people who articulate it were "anyone but Corbyn" types. Now they have the leader they want they insist it's a fundamental duty to back him, when they didn't back the previous one, thus leading to the disaster we are seeing today. Slice it however you want, that's simply a fact.
I'm still hopeful that Starmer will return to his roots and understand that the big tent is preferable to partisanship. I understand his apprehension. But what is the point of being on the soft left, if you decide at all costs to burn any leftist bridge you see in pursuit of centrism. And at a time when the main centrist party is aiming soft left! Fair enough. But can I take you up on the italicised bit. I did criticise him, but I also canvassed for Labour & voted for him. I'm not sure what you meant by leading to the disaster. The critique of Corbyn's Labour opponents would have to focus not on what the spear carriers said but on the MPs' coup against him following the EU Ref: & whether if the MPs who resigned from the front bench had stayed put, & there is nothing wors than a coup which fails, this would have enabled a more united front in 2017 & a higher Labour vote. They didn't need many extra seats. I know that's a pretty big what if. It was perfectly legitimate to withold support from Blair on the basis of his clear intent to cement the Thatcherite settelement - even though he did not admit it at the time. His government was well to the right of all the post war Tory administrations which preceded Thatcher - and in some respects he went further by continuing to privatise industries - sometimes in clear breach of pre- election promises - eg 'our air is not for sale'.From a left perspective a Macmillan Tory Government would have been preferable at the time. Corbyn did succeed in moving the Overton window to the left despite not gaining office- as evidenced by Johnson's shameless adoption of much of his 2017 programme.Tory economic policy has become much more Heseltinian in essence - with Osborne's austerity largely abandoned. Sunak clearly would like to return to the Osborne path, but Starmer needs to take advantage of the Overton window shift rather than seeking to compete with the Tories in terms of tight fiscal policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 21:07:45 GMT
And what on earth does it matter what a few of us cranks say on a piddling and inconsequential forum like this? A rhetorical question I presume  |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,159
|
Post by domjg on Sept 1, 2022 21:09:45 GMT
RAF I go back to the general question I posed. What parts of the "platform" has Starmer "disavowed" to the extent he's burnt any bridges that can't be crossed again? And what's this straw man "anyone but Corbyn"? As many others have said, I campaigned for him throughout the time he was leader. I thought all along that he and his key acolytes were wastes of space as politicians, and I did think of quitting at times, but I wanted Labour to win and for the increasingly right wing Tory Party to be defeated. I voted with genuine enthusiasm for Labour twice with Corbyn as leader (as well as locals). I punched the air at the unexpected '17 result and was distraught at the '19 result. I will give any Labour leader the benefit of the doubt and worry about how they're going to govern after they win a GE as winning is everything until winning is achieved. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 21:10:04 GMT
carfrew A little presumptuous of you to think you know how those of us campaigned for Labour in 2017 and 2019 conducted ourselves in exchanges with voters, or how much we understood the manifestos and policies or how we handled internally our misgivings about Corbyn. You have not the foggiest idea what we did, when and why. Your assumptions are self serving and prejudiced. And what on earth does it matter what a few of us cranks say on a piddling and inconsequential forum like this? It's a bit of harmless fun that has as much to do with serious politics as Marge Proops agony column had to do with securing the marital harmony of her readers. I didnt presume anything much. You are making stuff up. I asked you how you campaign under the circumstances I mentioned. If you don’t care yourself, why are you forever trying to be a rebuttal merchant? It’s rather hypocritical. Like when you complained that I pointed out what you had said in the past, which I didn’t think you would have a problem with because you do it yourself quite a bit. You do it to Colin, reminding him what he said about Truss and Johnson. In fact at the time you complained, you had just been going over what Trev used to say even though he had no longer been posting for a while! None of this means I take you that seriously, if that still ails you. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 1, 2022 21:11:22 GMT
"Nearly half of British children now grow up outside the traditional two-parent household, according to a report on the make-up of the modern family. A review being published today by Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, has found that almost a quarter of families are headed by a lone parent, compared with the EU average of one eighth. Forty-four per cent of those born in 2000 will have spent some of their childhood up to age 17 outside a traditional “nuclear” family, compared with 21 per cent of people born in 1970." Very interesting report with revealing detail :- www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/report/family-and-its-protective-effect-part-1-of-the-independent-family-review/I have to confess that I didn't read the report in your link but the figures you quote are appalling. The basic building block of a healthy society is the traditional family. This has been systematically eroded for many years by both governing parties, sometimes for what seemed like good reasons, such as making divorce easier. However the cumulative effect over say the last 50-60 years has been to weaken this fundamental structure. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 1, 2022 21:12:17 GMT
Fair enough. But can I take you up on the italicised bit. I did criticise him, but I also canvassed for Labour & voted for him. I'm not sure what you meant by leading to the disaster. If you didn’t support Corbyn on here, didn’t urge people to vote for him on here, only slagged him off, it’s a bit comical to go “but I supported him elsewhere, honest guv, so therefore you have to support my leader now!” The right wingers who say they campaigned for Corbyn yet didn’t seem to know much about his policies, couldn’t bring themselves to find much good in any of it at all, and just assume it was all too extremely left wing to take seriously when actually a lot of it was rather centrist: how do you campaign when you know very little about his policies? “Vote Corbyn!” ”Why?” ”Dunno. Anyway I can’t stand him. I don’t like left wing policies either. I can talk a lot about that! I’m in the 8% of people who don’t want more nationalisation. And even a majority of Tories want some nationalisation.” Now you're just being silly. Who did you vote/canvass for in '17 & '19. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 21:13:34 GMT
If you didn’t support Corbyn on here, didn’t urge people to vote for him on here, only slagged him off, it’s a bit comical to go “but I supported him elsewhere, honest guv, so therefore you have to support my leader now!” The right wingers who say they campaigned for Corbyn yet didn’t seem to know much about his policies, couldn’t bring themselves to find much good in any of it at all, and just assume it was all too extremely left wing to take seriously when actually a lot of it was rather centrist: how do you campaign when you know very little about his policies? “Vote Corbyn!” ”Why?” ”Dunno. Anyway I can’t stand him. I don’t like left wing policies either. I can talk a lot about that! I’m in the 8% of people who don’t want more nationalisation. And even a majority of Tories want some nationalisation.” Now you're just being silly. Who did you vote/canvass for in '17 & '19. I didn’t vote or canvass for anyone. But I am not trying to say others should back someone either or else they are supporting Tories etc. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,780
|
Post by steve on Sept 1, 2022 21:16:29 GMT
RAF If Starmer actually become an" acolyte of the Labour right" whatever that's supposed to consist of he wouldn't have embraced the absurd notion of " making Brexit work" which is a conceit of the Labour left and lunatic tories, at the very least he would be advocating single market membership. As someone who is a member of another political party apart from this admittedly massive mindfart he seems to be doing o.k.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 1, 2022 21:19:22 GMT
carfrew A little presumptuous of you to think you know how those of us campaigned for Labour in 2017 and 2019 conducted ourselves in exchanges with voters, or how much we understood the manifestos and policies or how we handled internally our misgivings about Corbyn. You have not the foggiest idea what we did, when and why. Your assumptions are self serving and prejudiced. And what on earth does it matter what a few of us cranks say on a piddling and inconsequential forum like this? It's a bit of harmless fun that has as much to do with serious politics as Marge Proops agony column had to do with securing the marital harmony of her readers. I didnt presume anything much. You are making stuff up. I asked you how you campaign under the circumstances I mentioned. If you don’t care yourself, why are you forever trying to be a rebuttal merchant? It’s rather hypocritical. Like when you complained that I pointed out what you had said in the past, which I didn’t think you would have a problem with because you do it yourself quite a bit. You do it to Colin, reminding him what he said about Truss and Johnson. In fact at the time you complained, you had just been going over what Trev used to say even though he had no longer been posting for a while! None of this means I take you that seriously, if that still ails you. Good man. We are at peace with one another. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 1, 2022 21:19:45 GMT
This evening is beginning to remind me of when I attended a university Labour Party (society?) meeting out of curiosity: a lot of people supposedly on the same side tearing lumps out of each other for no apparent reason. Meanwhile the Tories just got on with winning the election for something or other.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Sept 1, 2022 21:20:00 GMT
RAF If Starmer actually become an" acolyte of the Labour right" whatever that's supposed to consist of he wouldn't have embraced the absurd notion of " making Brexit work" which is a conceit of the Labour left and lunatic tories, at the very least he would be advocating single market membership. As someone who is a member of another political party apart from this admittedly massive mindfart he seems to be doing o.k. Single market membership= Free movement aka unlimited immigration. That's why Starmer hasn't proposed it. Membership of the Customs Union would be a better option if you're thinking on those terms, and would solve the Northern Ireland issue overnight. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 21:22:01 GMT
I didnt presume anything much. You are making stuff up. I asked you how you campaign under the circumstances I mentioned. If you don’t care yourself, why are you forever trying to be a rebuttal merchant? It’s rather hypocritical. Like when you complained that I pointed out what you had said in the past, which I didn’t think you would have a problem with because you do it yourself quite a bit. You do it to Colin, reminding him what he said about Truss and Johnson. In fact at the time you complained, you had just been going over what Trev used to say even though he had no longer been posting for a while! None of this means I take you that seriously, if that still ails you. Good man. We are at peace with one another. Okies. PUSB! |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,780
|
Post by steve on Sept 1, 2022 21:53:17 GMT
jib Of course you would say that it doesn't make it true. Single market membership involves no additional immigration unlimited or otherwise, freedom of movement is not immigration. Shame five years after you voted to leave you are still clueless as to what you were voting to leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Sept 1, 2022 21:55:55 GMT
jib Of course you would say that it doesn't make it true. Single market membership involves no additional immigration unlimited or otherwise, freedom of movement is not immigration. Shame five years after you voted to leave you are still clueless as to what you were voting to leave. What does freedom of movement mean? EU, EEA and Swiss citizens have the right to move freely within the territory of the European Union, European Economic Area and Switzerland. When they are lawfully in one of those countries, they should not be treated differently from citizens of that country in terms of: Access to employment Working conditions Taxation Access to training Access to trade unions Access to (for example) housing, education, education for their children Not a major issue for me. I just wanted out from Stealth Federalisation and the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. But you are the one who doesn't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Sept 1, 2022 22:12:04 GMT
Just because Ukraine (and Russia) was mentioned.
Die Zeit was reporting today that two high level civil servants are investigated in Germany for being Russian spies. As it is subscription only, you may want to search on Politico as they provided some sort of summary.
|
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Sept 1, 2022 22:15:09 GMT
@lazslo4new - "But she would do anything for self-satisfaction" May be this is an example of the vagaries of the English language tripping you up, but honestly, I just don't think we're ready for the mental image of Truss satisfying herself. It is not a question of language - you associate the physical stimulus causing the mental satisfaction and ignore when the process is reversed  |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Sept 1, 2022 22:22:34 GMT
Just because nationalisation of water supply and whiskey were mentioned.
There was a major marketing proposal about 18 years ago - selling bottled water with Scottish whiskey from the same well. Fortunately the councils intervened - as they were the owners of the water supply - and stated that then the distillers would have to reduce the whiskey production. Very wise.
Now, just to make it clear: nationalisation is not a solution for anything, although it could be an intermediary step to public ownership and control - and it never happened in England. In Hungary at least 18 water supply companies will be nationalised in the next 60 days. Yes, nationalised! But they were owned by the local governments, but the losses were too high, so they will be nationalised (although the local governments will have to pay for the customers' switching). If you like nationalisation...
Also, now Vodaphone HU is also nationalised - so there is a nationalised mobile service provider. If you like nationalisation...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 23:10:16 GMT
This is still the most telling demographic I've seen - voting in 2017 General Election by work status. Couldn't find same demographic for 2019. Tories given to us by the retired, no other work status group voted for them. Think about that! Work status Con Lab Lib Dem SNP UKIP Green Plaid Others Full-time 39 45 8 4 2 2 0 1 Part-time 40 44 8 3 2 2 0 1 Student 19 64 10 4 1 2 0 1 Retired 63 24 7 3 2 1 0 1 Unemployed 28 54 6 4 4 2 1 1 Not working 36 48 6 4 3 1 0 1 Other 30 55 6 4 2 2 0 1 | Work status | Con | Lab | Lib Dem | SNP | UKIP | Green | Plaid | Others | | Full-time | 39 | 45 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Part-time | 40 | 44 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Student | 19 | 64 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Retired | 63 | 24 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Unemployed | 28 | 54 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | Not working | 36 | 48 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Other | 30 | 55 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
I think it would be interesting to see the actual numbers, (or as closely estimated as possible if this were more practicable), to get more of a feel for the relative sizes of the categories numerically. Not sure how accessible such data might be.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Sept 1, 2022 23:15:13 GMT
Just because nationalisation of water supply and whiskey were mentioned. There was a major marketing proposal about 18 years ago - selling bottled water with Scottish whiskey from the same well. Fortunately the councils intervened - as they were the owners of the water supply - and stated that then the distillers would have to reduce the whiskey production. Very wise. Now, just to make it clear: nationalisation is not a solution for anything, although it could be an intermediary step to public ownership and control - and it never happened in England. In Hungary at least 18 water supply companies will be nationalised in the next 60 days. Yes, nationalised! But they were owned by the local governments, but the losses were too high, so they will be nationalised (although the local governments will have to pay for the customers' switching). If you like nationalisation... Also, now Vodaphone HU is also nationalised - so there is a nationalised mobile service provider. If you like nationalisation...
I think you have some of the details of your story about the proposal for whisky & bottled water wrong. It would have been Scottish Water (the publicly owned body set up in 2002 that would have refused permission for such a scheme - not an intervention as they are responsible for authorising all commercial water extraction, and they would only be concerned with the total volume to be extracted, not the particular purpose. It certainly wouldn't have been from a well! |
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Sept 1, 2022 23:49:17 GMT
RAF I go back to the general question I posed. What parts of the "platform" has Starmer "disavowed" to the extent he's burnt any bridges that can't be crossed again? And what's this straw man "anyone but Corbyn"? As many others have said, I campaigned for him throughout the time he was leader. I thought all along that he and his key acolytes were wastes of space as politicians, and I did think of quitting at times, but I wanted Labour to win and for the increasingly right wing Tory Party to be defeated. Anyone but Corbyn?? Yeah it is a straw ma I thought he was a waste of space but voted for Corbyn because I would rather have seen him in Downing St than May or Johnson. I wanted a Labour Government. I didn’t get all precious “ooh I don’t think I can vote Labour with him in charge. Ooh I can’t decide. I might vote Green. I could spoil my ballot paper”. Ffs. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,589
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Sept 2, 2022 6:12:32 GMT
And I have been for ome time that they know it. But how do you escape the Brexit tra they created, the energy trap they created, the lockdown trap they created? People have short memories and the Tories have a good majority. Even if they lose power, they'll be close next time. Part of my argument was exactly that overall they would be better off not being in power for the worst of the disruption and making labour responsible for fixing the mess. Not least make labour solve the brexit problem by renegotiating a closer deal with the EU, which is what has to happen. We havnt heard much of late of N. Ireland, because while con have threatened to tear up the agreement, they cannot do so because it would create revolt there and hasten cessation of the north. But on the other hand they keep promising to tear it up because its unacceptable. That cannot go on forever.
But since then some other difficulties have arisen too. Lockdown was a terrible mistake because it failed to save lives while halting the economy and therefore costing the nation a trillion pound, public and private. The Ukrainian war hasnt just become a problem for Putin, but also for the west. While we allowed the war to happen by not properly supporting Ukraine before the event, it is starting to look like Russia has managed to reverse the situtation of the cold war. Their sanctions are hurting the west badly...not really because of anything Russia has done but because the west allowed its own economy to become vulnerable. Once again, Brexit has made the Uk more vulnerable, but the conservative government's approach to decarbonisation has also made the UK vulnerable. The conservative government's approach to housing (this time dating back to Thatcher) has also made the Uk economy more vulnerable because we have high housing costs. The NHS is in a state of collapse, partly because of brexit, but also because the government set its face against trainig more staff despite the growing shortage becoming apparent before it came to power. They even cut training, and they hugely cut care services claiming council care is not NHS, but it is all part of care delivered to patients.
Cameron came to power only by adopting a cause -brexit- and only in a coalition with libs. Brexit was already in play in 2010 even though they were not yet promising a referendum. Arguably it was responsible for their whole block of rule now. It is unlikely to do the same trick for them at the next but one election. Lab got three terms after the disastrous situation con left post Thatcher-Major, and the current situation will be worse by the time of the next election.
On the other hand, labour will not recover Scotland. Obviously the SNP will better represent the people of Scotland and their people know it. Doesnt matter if you support independence, they are the only party which uniquely stands for Scottish rights.
And what is going to happen to the red wall seats? Dissilusionment over brexit will have set in by now, but the other shoe of what happened there was labour had nothing to offer those places. Which I suspect are now much more like the traditional tory shires. This is an ongoing consequence of deindustrialisation.
After labour win the next election, if they are seen as improving the economic situation incumbency effect suggests they will get a second win. I think the national temperament is turning more back to the 40s, which means government intervention in key industries. There is a risk a cautious labour government will not be radical enough to differentiate itself from con, as the recession continues albeit milder than under the last years of con.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,589
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Sept 2, 2022 6:20:17 GMT
It is all very good to promise to increase the UK's armed forces, but the question is how to pay for it. www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/it-would-cost-157bn-for-liz-truss-to-meet-her-defence-spending-pledge-new-analysis-reveals-12687377'A Liz Truss government will likely need to grow the Armed Forces by more than 40,000 military personnel and spend an extra £157bn to meet a pledge to increase defence spending to 3% of national income by 2030, new analysis has revealed' People can argue it is necessary (I am sympathetic to this view), but it is not realistic at the same time to promise tax cuts. There will be huge demands on the public purse in the next year or two and a grown up debate needs to be had on it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,589
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Sept 2, 2022 6:42:39 GMT
I have to confess that I didn't read the report in your link but the figures you quote are appalling. The basic building block of a healthy society is the traditional family. This has been systematically eroded for many years by both governing parties, sometimes for what seemed like good reasons, such as making divorce easier. However the cumulative effect over say the last 50-60 years has been to weaken this fundamental structure. What exactly is the 'traditional' family? For much of history surely we lived much more communally than we do now. For most of human history would we not have lived in extended groups, not blocks of two parents plus kids? Wasn't the creation of the two adult isolated group a means of social control breaking up local links and loyalties, making central control easier? I would think a communal model with friends, relatives or grandparents doing child raising, children learning a trade by working with their parents, all contributed to socialising children. Now we have specialist schools children attend, but that breaks the link between parent and child. It creates problems where parents are absent from a home at different times to children. We require both parents to work to fund what is considered an adequate home, but that breaks link with parents arguably just as much as if there is only one parent. Maybe single parents are forced to bring in other friends or relatives and therefore can compensate for a missing parent, could even do better than having two working parents, where gran is available. Perhaps the problem is really poverty where only one parent is available to work to support a child, and it really applies with two parent families also (because both are required to work and be absent the home) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,589
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Sept 2, 2022 6:45:18 GMT
Single market membership= Free movement aka unlimited immigration. That's why Starmer hasn't proposed it. Membership of the Customs Union would be a better option if you're thinking on those terms, and would solve the Northern Ireland issue overnight. You are not addressing the problem that conservative policies have for decades relied upon unlimited immigration. That turkey is already coming home to roost with increasing demands to restore freedom on movement from the EU even if we do not rejoin anything else. Not a major issue for me. I just wanted out from Stealth Federalisation and the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. We have already seen the failings of leaving the CAP and CFP. Farmers are already squealing and this will get worse as government ends their subsidies. Fishing rights remain undecided because we have no way to reclaim rights shared under international agreements pre dating EU membership, and because the pesky fish keep swimming. As to a federal EU, I dont see it happening more than it already has, and anyway we had a clear veto and already established a two track EU tailored for the UK. We had everything we could have asked for, and leave threw it away. It will take decades to restore our pre eminent world position after we rejoin the EU. Biggest win for Russia against the Uk was to get us out of the EU. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,780
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 6:47:56 GMT
While I am inclined to agree with the nonsense of virtue signalling voting and allegiance it's a bit more nuanced than that.
If I lived in a constituency where the only likely outcome was a Tory or Labour representative I would 100% of the time vote Labour.
But I don't.
I live in a constituency where the liberal democrats have gained massively against the Tories at local elections and despite in the past being the second party to the Tories where Labour local representation has reduced to zero on the local council.I also live in a constituency where the liberal democrats have won the adjacent two constituencies against the Tories at Westminster level.
As it stands at the moment the liberal democrats are simply a better fit particularly in regard to European union relations and a more likely method of ejecting our Tory mp.
I could equally well support the green party but under fptp that would be virtue signalling nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 2, 2022 6:56:59 GMT
A neat summary of just how useless this man has been -
Build nuclear which won't start generating until 2035, and buy a new kettle.
Pathetic, really.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,780
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 6:57:41 GMT
Danny
While restoring freedom of movement would potentially solve some of the Labour shortages .But it isn't immigration which implies permanent relocation it's just the ability to work, study and live anywhere within the European union and eea , subject to the ability to support yourself.
The small number of European union citizens while we remained in the European union who chose to remain permanently in the UK particularly after retirement is a clear indication of the difference.
It's exactly the same as moving to London to work but choosing to leave and retire or bring up a family elsewhere in England.
No one would seriously describe such people as immigrants or their choice to move freely from place to place as immigration.
|
|
