The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm also of the opinion that they've already been told a shift in policy needs to happen

They have. Various people close to Corbyn have said this on Twitter. Like I keep saying, Momentum are very powerful and very clued up. They'll know exactly the right line to push at what time. At the moment it's all falling apart swimmingly without Labour getting involved and losing any capital over it.

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's interesting. Didn't see the programme. I don't agree with your theory, really. A lot of the UKIP vote went tory in the GE, after all why vote for UKIP when the tories are effectivelyu UKIP in policy and are/were in GOv't .

Couldn't the increase in LD votes in that tweet also be a big factor - remain people let down having voted for Corbyn and found out now, how anti EU he is.

Basically, (IMO), "he needs to grow a pair and pick a horse"

Yes and yes

[Dr_Pangloss]

Ireland do a good job at making corporation tax in the EU something of a zero sum game. Fair enough, it has delivered for them, but not good overall, and the UK of course lose out massively. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[HanoiVillan]

It's a local election in one council ward in deeply-unfertile territory for Labour. 

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

He's increasingly being identified by leavers as a saboteur.

The UKIP vote seemingly went to Labour during the election allowing them ironically to deny the Tories their majority and hold them back over brexit.

But now his (and Labour's) position is increasingly pro-EU, the UKIP vote seems to be going back to Tories now and stopping Labour going any higher in the polls.

Every other question on Marr and Peston yesterday was about why Labour aren't doing any better than 40-42% vs 40% Tories when the Tories are in such disarray. In my opinion it's because Labour are too pro-EU for kippers.

Conveniently, according to googlywiki, it would appear that St Margaret's in Waveney actually has a population of 100.

 

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's a local election in one council ward in deeply-unfertile territory for Labour. 

 

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Conveniently, according to googlywiki, it would appear that St Margaret's in Waveney actually has a population of 100.

 

Kind of a tuppenny-halfpenny place then? With just the land-owner, 3 mangy cows, a chicken in its late 40s and a Dachsund named Colin?

Bad example. There was another which swung smellywards. Could be the same story of course. Devil's always in the detail eh?

[HanoiVillan]

This is good on the current state of opinion polls (which, on aggregate, show a static Labour lead within the margin of error):

'This raises the question of why support for the government and Theresa May is holding up when, on the face of it, they seem to be in such a mess. One eternal reason is that most people pay far less attention to political news than anyone reading this blog does. Cabinet rows and government weakness will make no difference to the voting intention of people who are wholly unaware of them. As an illustration, the poll also asked people if they thought Theresa May should get rid of Priti Patel (at a time, remember, when the story was all over the news and had been for four days). 17% said she should stay, 30% that she should go, 53% gave a “don’t know”. Government incompetence won’t hurt Tory support among people who are unaware of it.

An alternative possibility is that Tory voters are sticking with the Conservatives, however poor they are, because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn. To test this YouGov asked people who said they’d vote Tory tomorrow why they were supporting them. Only 7% of Tory voters said it was because they both agreed with the government’s aims and thought they were delivering them, 48% said they agreed with the government’s aims even if they were struggling to deliver them, 22% said they thought the government were competent, even if they didn’t agree with all their aims. 19% of Tory voters, however, said they didn’t think the government were governing well and didn’t agree with their aims… but they still preferred them to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.'

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9954

I'll leave this at this point because we're obviously getting away from Brexit. 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Conveniently, according to googlywiki, it would appear that St Margaret's in Waveney actually has a population of 100.

 

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Conveniently, according to googlywiki, it would appear that St Margaret's in Waveney actually has a population of 100.

 

Electorate of 6358, which sounds more like it.  But turnout of 18%.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I'd agree with that, yes.

Which doesn't in any way alter "Corbyn and chums are enthusiastic exiters" which is what I initially said. And as per @peterms reply, as well while other Labour party senior people might think the position might potentially allow a move to remain, that's an opinion and nothing more, and certainly not any kind of Corbyn (or chums) position or view. They are soft Brexiters, not hard Brexiters, but they are enthusiastic (apparently) about leaving (certainly compared to staying). 

I acknowledge it's hard for some politicians to say what they actually think or believe.

For some people the EU may be a matter of principle - you're either for it or agin it, either a Brexiter or not, and any change in your view is either a seismic shift (if genuine) or else utter hypocrisy (if not).

For me, and I suspect many others, it's just a pragmatic and contingent question of whether it is currently and foreseeably a better arrangement than the alternative.  For that group of people, it makes sense to decide whether to stay or leave based on the offer on the table, and how they expect arrangements to develop in future, for example whether they expect there to be pressure to join the euro or have a common armed forces, perhaps.

For those people, the idea of having one fixed view on the EU as though it's a core value is nonsensical.  Their answer to the question "stay or leave?" is "It depends".  Changing your view, based on circumstances changing, is common sense.

And if you come to think that leaving is, on balance, no longer as good a prospect as remaining, and you wish to achieve an outcome of remaining, if you are a political leader, then the point of the exercise becomes how to garner support for that position.  Stating an unequivocal view and expecting people to fall in behind it like army cadets is not a runner.  Seeking to understand what underlying issues matter to people, stimulate some informed discussion about how those issues will be affected by staying or leaving, and testing whether opinion is shifting to the point where people will come along with a change of position, is both sound tactics, and the heart of what politics is about - trying to build support, not expecting obedience.

Corbyn has been lukewarm about the EU.  When he gave what seemed to me to be an honest assessment (7 out of 10) he was roundly abused by some in his own party for his honesty.  He once favoured leaving.  Whether he still does, now, I don't know.  But I suspect that for him it's about whether Brexit will or won't achieve the rather more important goals of social justice, full employment, excellent public services and so on, not as something good or bad in its own right.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

and you wish to achieve an outcome of remaining

This is not a valid final outcome though and to campaign for it seems a waste of time IMO.  

As per the referendum question.  I think the approach should be that the re-moaners have been heard and they have successfully covered their own arse (Which I think a lot of this is now,  there are millions and millions of people waiting to say "Told you so" on both sides.)

 

 

 

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

But I suspect that for him it's about whether Brexit will or won't achieve the rather more important goals of social justice, full employment, excellent public services and so on, not as something good or bad in its own right.

he's too late isn't he ?

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, peterms said:

...For me, and I suspect many others, it's just a pragmatic and contingent question of whether it is currently and foreseeably a better arrangement than the alternative.  For that group of people, it makes sense to decide whether to stay or leave based on the offer on the table, and how they expect arrangements to develop in future, for example whether they expect there to be pressure to join the euro or have a common armed forces, perhaps.

For those people, the idea of having one fixed view on the EU as though it's a core value is nonsensical.  Their answer to the question "stay or leave?" is "It depends".  Changing your view, based on circumstances changing, is common sense.

And if you come to think that leaving is, on balance, no longer as good a prospect as remaining, and you wish to achieve an outcome of remaining, if you are a political leader, then the point of the exercise becomes how to garner support for that position.  Stating an unequivocal view and expecting people to fall in behind it like army cadets is not a runner.  Seeking to understand what underlying issues matter to people, stimulate some informed discussion about how those issues will be affected by staying or leaving, and testing whether opinion is shifting to the point where people will come along with a change of position, is both sound tactics, and the heart of what politics is about - trying to build support, not expecting obedience.

Corbyn has been lukewarm about the EU.  When he gave what seemed to me to be an honest assessment (7 out of 10) he was roundly abused by some in his own party for his honesty.  He once favoured leaving.  Whether he still does, now, I don't know.  But I suspect that for him it's about whether Brexit will or won't achieve the rather more important goals of social justice, full employment, excellent public services and so on, not as something good or bad in its own right.

I don't think there is "an offer on the table" upon which to base a decision whether to stay or leave. I therefore don't go with an "answer to the question "stay or leave?" being "It depends [on this imaginary offer]". At the current time (and up to this point), at no time has there been "an offer". I think that it is incumbent on leaders to make an assessment, or to hold a view as to what, on balance, are the things that really matter and to state unequivocally what and why and how that can be achieved. To lead, whether that be their MPs, their party, public debate and thought....

Corbyn (and most other politicians) have baulked at doing that. They have (for example) campaigned with luke warm enthusiasm for (say) remain, then once leave was the ref. result gone all "Brexit! yay! will of the people" and suspended all rational thought or critical faculties.

The shockingly shallow level of discussion, detail and debate amongst the majority of the MPs is something of a shame for them and on them (with some exceptions). Corbyn is one of the ones who is shamed, IMO. And he's being outshoe (not hard) by Keir Starmer and others.

Tactically I can follow the narrative that Labour are gradually preparing to change their official poistion at an opportune time, once/if public opinion changes further towards "sod brexit for a lark" but it's not leadership. 

[NurembergVillan]

Electoral Commission re-opening the investigation into spending on the referendum, in particular relation to the spending of 23 year old Darren Grimes who was given £675k by Leave for his BeLeave social media campaign (which amassed 1600 followers) but which, it now transpires, was paid directly to the same "analytics" company that Leave themselves had been using.

Quote

The Electoral Commission has today (20 November 2017) announced it has opened an investigation to establish whether Vote Leave Limited, Mr Darren Grimes and/or Veterans for Britain breached campaign finance rules in relation to spending at the 2016 EU referendum.

http://tinyurl.com/y8lyxtrh

This whole Leave affair absolutely stinks.

[HanoiVillan]

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that it is incumbent on leaders to make an assessment, or to hold a view as to what, on balance, are the things that really matter and to state unequivocally what and why and how that can be achieved. To lead, whether that be their MPs, their party, public debate and thought....

Corbyn (and most other politicians) have baulked at doing that. 

Has he?

He's said what he thinks really matters ('a jobs-first Brexit'). The party has said what can be achieved (they have announced the intention to vote down the EU (Withdrawal) Bill if the deal the government strike (or not) is worse than the status quo - this seems to me to be a promise to vote against the Bill at the third reading). They have said why (along the lines of people didn't vote to impoverish themselves). And they have said how (a longer, but still time-limited transition deal while remaining in the SM and CU). You can argue that these things aren't realistic, and some of them probably aren't, but I think they've literally done what you're asking. 

[Enda]

18 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

lol mate, I'm not convinced you've read the whole post. But hey, lol, we've all got our own agendas.

Correct a silly claim on an internet forum isn't having an "agenda" 

[Enda]

3 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Ireland do a good job at making corporation tax in the EU something of a zero sum game. Fair enough, it has delivered for them, but not good overall, and the UK of course lose out massively. 

I don't agree that the UK loses out massively from Irish tax policy but if you think corporate taxes are a zero-sum game, then maybe the UK and Ireland should be part of some economic-political union to address these issues 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I don't think there is "an offer on the table" upon which to base a decision whether to stay or leave. I therefore don't go with an "answer to the question "stay or leave?" being "It depends [on this imaginary offer]". At the current time (and up to this point), at no time has there been "an offer". I think that it is incumbent on leaders to make an assessment, or to hold a view as to what, on balance, are the things that really matter and to state unequivocally what and why and how that can be achieved. To lead, whether that be their MPs, their party, public debate and thought....

It is precisely because there is no offer on the table on which to base a rational decision that some people are arguing for a second referendum, so that an informed choice can be made.

In the absence of that, a view on staying or leaving is either very general, or largely emotional.  I think most remainers were in favour of staying on practical and pragmatic grounds, rather than the wild emotional excesses of parts of the leave brigade.  So if you want political leaders to state a position passionately and call others to fall in behind that, it's more likely that the Brexit position will have shown that kind of leadership, because so many of them seem to have been driven by a kind of fierce anger.  Not thought leadership, not presenting robust and well-evidenced arguments, rather stoking fear and resentment.

Remain isn't really a crusade, is it?  And yet, if you want leaders to state a position and campaign for it in ignorance of what practical arrangements can be agreed, that is in effect what you're asking for.

Personally, I think the current situation is an unfolding nightmare, but I'm so ambivalent and unenthusiastic about the EU I really can't imagine campaigning for it.

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

...because there is no offer on the table...a view on staying or leaving is either very general, or largely emotional.  I think most remainers were in favour of staying on practical and pragmatic grounds, rather than the wild emotional excesses of parts of the leave brigade.  So if you want political leaders to state a position passionately and call others to fall in behind that, it's more likely that the Brexit position will have shown that kind of leadership, because so many of them seem to have been driven by a kind of fierce anger.  Not thought leadership, not presenting robust and well-evidenced arguments, rather stoking fear and resentment.

Remain isn't really a crusade, is it?  And yet, if you want leaders to state a position and campaign for it in ignorance of what practical arrangements can be agreed, that is in effect what you're asking for....

Perhaps I've been unclear, then.

I don't think, for the people who represent us it should be either "very general, or largely emotional.". Regardless of whether there is currently a deal on the table I want the politicians and civl servants to do a number of things, none of which are "emotional" and none of which are "very general" I want a detailed analysis done of the precise implications of leaving on each sector and segment of our nation. The EU has done that from their perspective, and you can look at it on their internet. Allegedly the UK has done these 57 papers, but I think that's probably untrue.

From those detailed analyses, plus from principles (e.g environmental protection/ fishing/ farming subsidies/ workers rights ...etc. ) to put a weighting or assessment of the implications agains priorities. So if your principle is for (say) immigration that you want more or less or the same control how this could be achieved and what is preventing it being done within / outside EU membership.

Effectively a forensic type work. Using experts, representatives from the NHS, from Banking, from industries, from farming, fishing, Scotland, Wales, NI etc. Big tent stuff making use of as much knowledge and expertise as you can get hold of. To do what they are paid for.

Or you could indeed just be all emotional or generalistic... 

That's what I meant when I mentioned the shallowness of the politicians. They are not being held to account, or holding people to account. There's been so much claimed and said and done that's simply lies and hubris.

And while all that's gone on, Corbyn (and many others) have just been "EU, 7/10...will of the people...do Brexit"

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think, for the people who represent us it should be either "very general, or largely emotional.". Regardless of whether there is currently a deal on the table I want the politicians and civl servants to do a number of things, none of which are "emotional" and none of which are "very general" I want a detailed analysis done of the precise implications of leaving on each sector and segment of our nation. The EU has done that from their perspective, and you can look at it on their internet. Allegedly the UK has done these 57 papers, but I think that's probably untrue.

From those detailed analyses, plus from principles (e.g environmental protection/ fishing/ farming subsidies/ workers rights ...etc. ) to put a weighting or assessment of the implications agains priorities. So if your principle is for (say) immigration that you want more or less or the same control how this could be achieved and what is preventing it being done within / outside EU membership.

Effectively a forensic type work. Using experts, representatives from the NHS, from Banking, from industries, from farming, fishing, Scotland, Wales, NI etc. Big tent stuff making use of as much knowledge and expertise as you can get hold of. To do what they are paid for

Yes, I'd agree with that.  Except possibly using bankers.

That is the role of the civil service, directed by government.  Opposition parties have been calling for this, but cannot make it happen.  However I do think they are trying to hold the government to account in this.