Seems fairly unequivocal that he's saying the end of free movement is a good thing.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In some ways he's worse. He wants to stay in the customs union because he's a protectionist like TrumpIn terms of the UK relationship with the EU, he's no different to the likes of May, Bojo and co. He thinks that the EU will allow him to cherry pick if he smiles and ask nicely
He has no interest in free trade outside of Europe because it could cost manufacturing jobs
It's been obvious since well before the referendum that he's quite happy to leave the EU.
He has his fair share of blame why Leave won the referendum.
Apart from anything else he wants to nationalise everything.
The eu referendum really was a series of strange events.
2010 - Labour hold a leadership election. Blairite David Milliband is expected to win, instead his brother Ed chooses to run against him and somehow wins with the trade union backing.
2015 - its general election time. A hung parliament is expected, instead the tories somehow win a slight majority as Ed Milliband proves to be hugely unpopular
2016 - Cameron fulfills his promise to hold a referendum on the European Union membership. The new Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn stays mostly quiet on the subject, as he's traditionally eurosceptic whilst being head of a pro-europe party. Cameron fails achieve meaningful concessions during negotiations, meaning he is easily dismissed. Remain is expected to win, but Leave somehow pips it.
2017 - Theresa May holds an election seeking an increased majority to get through the tough EU negotiations. Suddenly Labour make a comeback following the release of Corbyns socialist manifesto. A coalition of the left is looking like the most likely option following the exit polls. Somehow Ruth Davidson's Scottish Tories the 13 seats compared to Corbyns 7 as the two Social Democratic parties split the vote. The tories form a partnership with the DUP and stay in power
And here we are
Last edited:
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
In some ways he's worse. He wants to stay in the customs union because he's a protectionist like Trump
He has no interest in free trade outside of Europe because it could cost manufacturing jobs
The eu referendum really was a series of strange events.
2010 - Labour hold a leadership election. Blairite David Milliband is expected to win, instead his brother Ed chooses to run against him and somehow wins with the trade union backing.
2015 - its general election time. A hung parliament is expected, instead the tories somehow win a slight majority as Ed Milliband proves to be hugely unpopular
2016 - Cameron fulfills his promise to hold a referendum on the European Union membership. Remain is expected to win, but Leave somehow pips it.
2017 - Theresa May holds an election seeking an increased majority to get through the tough EU negotiations. Suddenly Labour make a comeback following the release of Corbyns socialist manifesto. A coalition of the left is looking like the most likely option following the exit polls. Somehow Ruth Davidson's Scottish Tories the 13 seats compared to Corbyns 7 as the two Social Democratic parties split the vote. The tories form a partnership with the DUP and stay in power
And here we are
Yes, I've said all along that if Labour had a different leader things could have turned out differently. Yes the hard Labour voters may like Corbyn but the floating voter who determine the outcome of votes seem to dislike him.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
The SPD says hiYes, I've said all along that if Labour had a different leader things could have turned out differently. Yes the hard Labour voters may like Corbyn but the floating voter who determine the outcome of votes seem to dislike him.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
The SPD says hi
How can you relate Germany to the UK, the UK is basically a two party country and Corbyn's opposition is May, Johnson et al , not exactly heavyweight opponents.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Ok another example then - everybody racist grandpa is president of the united states. My point being the only reason Labour are the biggest social democratic party in Europe and got 40% in the election last year is because there was a chance to elected a far left leader and to move the party more left wards(i.e. nationalise everything).How can you relate Germany to the UK, the UK is basically a two party country and Corbyn's opposition is May, Johnson et al , not exactly heavyweight opponents.
If that haven't of happened and someone like Liz Kendall or David Milland have been leader instead then the party would mostly likely be in the shits like every other social democratic party in Europe and the Dems in the US(Although they are starting to make something of a comeback).
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Ok another example then - everybody racist grandpa is president of the united states. My point being the only reason Labour are the biggest social democratic party in Europe and got 40% in the election last year is because there was a chance to elected a far left leader and to move the party more left wards(i.e. nationalise everything).
If that haven't of happened and someone like Liz Kendall or David Milland have been leader instead then the party would mostly likely be in the shits like every other social democratic party in Europe and the Dems in the US(Although they are starting to make something of a comeback).
I do like Corbyn but his rhetoric on the EU has been horrendously vague and undefined, in an attempt to placate hard Leavers and staunch Remainers who vote for the party. Eventually (like the Tories) he's going to have to commit to one or the other and come out with some stuff on Brexit that goes beyond mere meaningless soundbites like he's peddling at the moment.
The SPD says hi
The UK, right now and historically, is much more similar to the US than Germany
We've got two parties, one that represents the spectrum from the left to the centre, and the other than represents the spectrum from the right to the centre.
The majority of voters are in the centre, but the majority of party members are at the two extremes, right and left.
So you've got Corbyn/Sanders being voted in by the left (yes Sanders didn't win, but let's ignore that for a second), and Trump/May being voted in by the right (Yes May wasn't really voted in, but her policies are being dictated by the right of the party, and as we know May has no personality of her own).
In previous years, both parties appeared at times to have little between them. Right now, that hasn't been less true since the 80's.
By the vast majority of voters exist in the centre. For example:
Most americans want more gun control. source
Most americans want legal status for dreamers. source
Most Brits think the EU result should be respected. source
The super vast majority of brits think that Eu citizens should be allowed to stay after Brexit. source.
When the two main parties move to the sides, there is a huge central section to get votes from. David Milliband could have one at least one of the last two elections
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Whats he said that's wrong?Ffs, every time I start warming to Corbyn he lets me down over Brexit again. I get that he isn’t an EU fan, but his party predominantly is.
Adisa
likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
The economy is doing well.
I fear he's going to win a second term and will be proven this November.
I fear he's going to win a second term and will be proven this November.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Yes, it's being interpreted incorrectly but the usual suspects, maybe this sounds betterI think the quote your looking for is
"Preventing employers being able to import cheap agency labour, to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy.
This does actually happen.
"Encouraging employers to import cheap agency labour, to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy."
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
Ok another example then - everybody racist grandpa is president of the united states. My point being the only reason Labour are the biggest social democratic party in Europe and got 40% in the election last year is because there was a chance to elected a far left leader and to move the party more left wards(i.e. nationalise everything).
If that haven't of happened and someone like Liz Kendall or David Milland have been leader instead then the party would mostly likely be in the shits like every other social democratic party in Europe and the Dems in the US(Although they are starting to make something of a comeback).
I don't necessarily disagree with you, like in France the Socialists have plummeted into disaster but they're competing with Mélenchon, Macron and even Le Pen where parts of their vote has disappeared. The Labour Party, especially in England have recovered their UKIP voters which is disintegrating otherwise voters mainly switching between Tory and Labour.
It's more like the US where if Trump loses the confidence of the voters it will swing towards the Dems as you say. Corbyn has almost an open goal but seems to be hoping that the Tories score an own goal rather than take advantage. Not impressed by him at all and that is nothing to do with political preference.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Oh completely agree but he's literally the best option the party has. The alternative would have been someone from the soft left arguing the UK shouldn't be leaving at all, which might make some in here happy but would destroy the party.I do like Corbyn but his rhetoric on the EU has been horrendously vague and undefined, in an attempt to placate hard Leavers and staunch Remainers who vote for the party. Eventually (like the Tories) he's going to have to commit to one or the other and come out with some stuff on Brexit that goes beyond mere meaningless soundbites like he's peddling at the moment.
The UK, right now and historically, is much more similar to the US than Germany
We've got two parties, one that represents the spectrum from the left to the centre, and the other than represents the spectrum from the right to the centre.
The majority of voters are in the centre, but the majority of party members are at the two extremes, right and left.
So you've got Corbyn/Sanders being voted in by the left (yes Sanders didn't win, but let's ignore that for a second), and Trump/May being voted in by the right (Yes May wasn't really voted in, but her policies are being dictated by the right of the party, and as we know May has no personality of her own).
In previous years, both parties appeared at times to have little between them. Right now, that hasn't been less true since the 80's.
By the vast majority of voters exist in the centre.
When the two main parties move to the sides, there is a huge central section to get votes from.
I would disagree with you on most voters being in the ''centre'', most people will say they are but then when ask on certain polices they will actually quite far left or right. Nationalisation being a good example , most people in the UK are favour but they would'nt called themselves socialists even if they are nationalising almost everything in sight.
When the two main parties move to the sides, there is a huge central section to get votes from.
I don't think there is. The Remain case was pretty full of people from the political centre - everyone from Cameron wing of the tories, most of the Labour Party, big business and yet it lost to quite small far right movement(I think the same can be said about Trumps win as well). And then in the following election both parties have moved from the centre and had some of their best results in years.
But I would say recent political events points towards the opposite. Across the west people with similar politics to David Milliand have been losing elections(Milland thought Corbyn was far to left wing to doing anything politically - he turned out to be completely wrong). The mass membership, momentum(Which has over 30,000 members)the online campaign which was vital to fighting back against the national newspapers(The paper who have treated David the same way they treated his brother), the popular manifesto, the support from the unions, all of this was only possible with a far left leader.David Milliband could have one at least one of the last two elections
Yeah Labour haven't been great when talking about Brexit but I'm not sure what they could possible do. The voter base they need to hold onto is so incredibly fragile that disappearing is at the moment the best outcome.I don't necessarily disagree with you, like in France the Socialists have plummeted into disaster but they're competing with Mélenchon, Macron and even Le Pen where parts of their vote has disappeared. The Labour Party, especially in England have recovered their UKIP voters which is disintegrating otherwise voters mainly switching between Tory and Labour.
It's more like the US where if Trump loses the confidence of the voters it will swing towards the Dems as you say. Corbyn has almost an open goal but seems to be hoping that the Tories score an own goal rather than take advantage. Not impressed by him at all and that is nothing to do with political preference.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
Yeah Labour haven't been great when talking about Brexit but I'm not sure what they could possible do. The voter base they need to hold onto is so incredibly fragile that disappearing is at the moment the best outcome.
Yes they are fragile. I've watched him quite a few times on PMQ and not just on Brexit but on other topics he seems incapable of pressing home an advantage even when his opponent is as weak as May. Against more formidable opponents how would he fare then?
Well exactly. There is much broader agreement than the parties make out.I would disagree with you on most voters being in the ''centre'', most people will say they are but then when ask on certain polices they will actually quite far left or right. Nationalisation being a good example , most people in the UK are favour but they would'nt called themselves socialists even if they are nationalising almost everything in sight.
And yet Corbyn did not win the 2017 general election. He is not prime minister. He may very well win in 2022, but that would largely be because of continuous and severe self inflicted wounds by the conservative party, and because he may well be running against his antithesis in Jacob Rees MoggBut I would say recent political events points towards the opposite. Across the west people with similar politics to David Milliand have been losing elections(Milland thought Corbyn was far to left wing to doing anything politically - he turned out to be completely wrong). The mass membership, momentum(Which has over 30,000 members)the online campaign which was vital to fighting back against the national newspapers(The paper who have treated David the same way they treated his brother), the popular manifesto, the support from the unions, all of this was only possible with a far left leader.
One area where Corbyn did do well, is unifying leavers and remainers on the left. Partly that's because he's just kept quiet on what he wants. His manifesto, yes, was a breath of fresh air, it was positive, forward thinking, socialist, nationalist, and more. It's a manifesto from someone who has been dreaming of what they'd do, if they ever got the chance, for a long time. But there is no reason someone more centralist couldn't have also come out with populist nationalist policies in some areas.
In fact, the most important issue that people are voting on, whether they realise it or not, is the economy. It's the economy stupid! You've got Corbyn promising to tax and spend to help the poor, May saying there is no magic money tree, Trump promising to save american jobs, Johnson hoping to inject £350m a week into the NHS, Sanders promising to sort out healthcare, and so on.
Corbyn's manifesto was popular, but less so than the status quo, because people are worried about the economy.
A more centralist Labour party with forward thinking policies and more caution and care with regards to the economy could have won
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
Corbyn did better than expected in the election...but he still lost. You have to give credit to his supporters who seem to have successfully won the argument that losing by a more narrow a margin than expected is the same as a win - but let's face it, it isn't no matter how many people have been convinced by it. It really isn't.
In theory a government that was split over Europe, who'd just lost the referendum it held on Europe and who only won the previous election by the slimmest of margins would not, at any other point in history, been difficult to dislodge. Yes Corbyn did better than expected, but he also lost arguably one of the easiest elections to win in modern history if you look at the state the governing party was in post the EU referendum. On paper name another post-war election where the ground was so fertile for the opposition that they ended up losing. 1992 perhaps, but Major was a great campaigner, May an awful one.
Labour's reluctance, until very recently, to do anything other than whip their MPs into supporting the government on Brexit, has made these last 12 months easier on the Tories than they needed have been. If Corbyn came out in favour of staying in the/a single market from the beginning he would have both united his own party and also provided opposition for the hard-right rhetoric. One of the reasons I believe Brexit's still polls fairly highly is because the last 18 months we've had a government saying we must leave everything and have a hard brexit, and an opposition leader who until very, very recently has said nothing much other than 'we agree'.
The only opposition to Tory hardline Brexit has been coming from the few voices in the media for much of the time since the referendum, not the Labour party, until recently but even the recent support of retaining a customs union appears to be one Corbyn's reluctantly reached after much persuasion that really shouldn't have been at all necessary.
In theory a government that was split over Europe, who'd just lost the referendum it held on Europe and who only won the previous election by the slimmest of margins would not, at any other point in history, been difficult to dislodge. Yes Corbyn did better than expected, but he also lost arguably one of the easiest elections to win in modern history if you look at the state the governing party was in post the EU referendum. On paper name another post-war election where the ground was so fertile for the opposition that they ended up losing. 1992 perhaps, but Major was a great campaigner, May an awful one.
Labour's reluctance, until very recently, to do anything other than whip their MPs into supporting the government on Brexit, has made these last 12 months easier on the Tories than they needed have been. If Corbyn came out in favour of staying in the/a single market from the beginning he would have both united his own party and also provided opposition for the hard-right rhetoric. One of the reasons I believe Brexit's still polls fairly highly is because the last 18 months we've had a government saying we must leave everything and have a hard brexit, and an opposition leader who until very, very recently has said nothing much other than 'we agree'.
The only opposition to Tory hardline Brexit has been coming from the few voices in the media for much of the time since the referendum, not the Labour party, until recently but even the recent support of retaining a customs union appears to be one Corbyn's reluctantly reached after much persuasion that really shouldn't have been at all necessary.
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
I do like Corbyn but his rhetoric on the EU has been horrendously vague and undefined, in an attempt to placate hard Leavers and staunch Remainers who vote for the party. Eventually (like the Tories) he's going to have to commit to one or the other and come out with some stuff on Brexit that goes beyond mere meaningless soundbites like he's peddling at the moment.
His difficulty is that he's every bit of pro-leaving the EU as Redwood, Fox and all the other hardliners. Even during the referendum his apparent 'pro-remain' interventions he would focus largely on things he disliked about the EU yet include a rather half-hearted caveat that maybe staying in might, possibly, perhaps, on balance, be kinda, sort of okay, I guess.
The vociferous support he has and personal nature of the attacks against anyone who voices an opinion against him means that at the time we weren't allowed to notice that.
SwansonsTache
incontinent sexual deviant & German sausage lover
https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141215
Macron and Merkel out with their shenanigans again, good on the northern member states for stopping it.
Macron and Merkel out with their shenanigans again, good on the northern member states for stopping it.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
The eurozone is not just france and germany calling the shots.https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141215
Macron and Merkel out with their shenanigans again, good on the northern member states for stopping it.
Oh wait...................
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
The eurozone is not just france and germany calling the shots.
Oh wait...................
Yes you're correct it isn't, hence the article in the post you quoted listed nations who will oppose the proposals.
What is it exactly you're waiting for?
http://www.businessforscotland.com/outraged-theresa-may-rejects-eu-withdrawal-plan/incompetent may is back
Well here we are “down the road” with the undoable deal as I described, and the PM says no British PM could ever sign such a deal. The mainstream press even seem surprised that the EU had the nerve to propose it. They didn’t, the UK Prime Minister did – you couldn’t write a farce like this.
GloryHunter07
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 12,156
I think he is waiting for Brexit to blow up in the Tories' faces first.I do like Corbyn but his rhetoric on the EU has been horrendously vague and undefined, in an attempt to placate hard Leavers and staunch Remainers who vote for the party. Eventually (like the Tories) he's going to have to commit to one or the other and come out with some stuff on Brexit that goes beyond mere meaningless soundbites like he's peddling at the moment.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,922
I think the UK had deceived its way to kick start part 2 of the negotiations by verbally agreeing to the UK stance. The idea behind it was to better understand what the EU has in mind and be in a better position to drive a wedge between the 27 members of the EU in a typical divide and conquer strategy which is so synonymous to England and Westminster. Unfortunately for the UK it seems that the trick had a limited effect. The EU had detected the trick early on and had made it quite obvious that its prepared to freeze up negotiations unless a written commitment is given.
The good news is that the UK negotiators aren't as stupid as the media is portraying them to be. The bad news is that the UK is ruining the last shreds of reputation it held in Europe. Next time Davies speak of 'trust' there's a chance someone will end up laughiing
Last edited:
Member 109952
Guest
On Corbyn personally I think he's a terrible leader for Labour. Not because of his principles, which obviously appeal to some and he seems like a nice guy, it's just he and the main people in his cabinet are so far left policy wise that they alienate the majority of voters. In the last snap election May called there was actually a lot of bad will towards her, and I know of a few people who voted Labour after having voted Tory in the 2015 election, but Corbyn doesn't nearly appeal enough to the people in the centre which for the UK is the vast majority of people (as both parties are pretty centre).
E.g. Mcdonnell with his nationalisation policies (a terrible idea, nationalisation destroyed steel and car making in this country) & Corbyn with policies like free student loans for all. I'd love free student loans, I have younger siblings in uni / going to go into uni who'd have to take tuition loans, but erasing all loans isn't a smart policy as a lot would say it's expensive for the tax payer. To appeal to voters, it's far smarter to say ok, let's maybe cut tuition loans by half, and let's reduce the high 6% interest rate. That way you appeal to both students and people who don't want the burden to fall on the tax payer. Economically, Labour currently are terrible.
I'm not sure how much better for Brexit Labour would be as they don't really have a policy on it (it's easy to say whatever when you're in opposition), and you have to remember the Conservatives were against Brexit too, but the reality is Labour will never get voted in with Corbyn in charge as economically they're terrible.
I actually agree on the above regarding David Miliband - imo he would've had a pretty solid chance of winning the 2015 election. Charisma matters a lot in elections, it's why I wasn't too surprised Trump won despite all the stuff he's said, because during debates etc he always showed himself to exude more power and charisma than Hillary. Obama was pretty much as Charismatic as you can get. David Miliband was a pretty solid orator and debator, Ed Milliband in comparison always came across as poor in both of those regards. In my eyes the 2015 election result was really lost in 2010 when David lost the Labour leadership contest. Which is funny because as was mentioned above if you look at the results of that contest David Miliband consistently won in votes through each round of voting in both MP votes and Labour party member votes, but where he lost out was in the votes from the affiliated trade unions and socialist societies. Which really has two consequences / similarities that we still see today 1) The hoopla over Europe would likely not have occured under David Miliband and we wouldn't have had a largely unneeded Brexit vote and 2) There's similarities in Corbyn winning, because he doesn't actually have the support of the majority of the labour party (as seen in the vote of no confidence which he heavily lost), but because of the changes to the labour leadership process means he's largely elected by the direct public, and more to the point largely by those who're bothered enough to register as labour party members, which in 2015 was largely the left as they're by far the heaviest campaigners for Labour. Which means Labour in it's current iteration unless they change the leadership voting structure, will remain a pretty left-ist party for the forseable future, and the chance of a more centre leader like Tony Blair being voted leader are lower. And that means we could well have a period where the only significant centre party are the conservatives.
E.g. Mcdonnell with his nationalisation policies (a terrible idea, nationalisation destroyed steel and car making in this country) & Corbyn with policies like free student loans for all. I'd love free student loans, I have younger siblings in uni / going to go into uni who'd have to take tuition loans, but erasing all loans isn't a smart policy as a lot would say it's expensive for the tax payer. To appeal to voters, it's far smarter to say ok, let's maybe cut tuition loans by half, and let's reduce the high 6% interest rate. That way you appeal to both students and people who don't want the burden to fall on the tax payer. Economically, Labour currently are terrible.
I'm not sure how much better for Brexit Labour would be as they don't really have a policy on it (it's easy to say whatever when you're in opposition), and you have to remember the Conservatives were against Brexit too, but the reality is Labour will never get voted in with Corbyn in charge as economically they're terrible.
I actually agree on the above regarding David Miliband - imo he would've had a pretty solid chance of winning the 2015 election. Charisma matters a lot in elections, it's why I wasn't too surprised Trump won despite all the stuff he's said, because during debates etc he always showed himself to exude more power and charisma than Hillary. Obama was pretty much as Charismatic as you can get. David Miliband was a pretty solid orator and debator, Ed Milliband in comparison always came across as poor in both of those regards. In my eyes the 2015 election result was really lost in 2010 when David lost the Labour leadership contest. Which is funny because as was mentioned above if you look at the results of that contest David Miliband consistently won in votes through each round of voting in both MP votes and Labour party member votes, but where he lost out was in the votes from the affiliated trade unions and socialist societies. Which really has two consequences / similarities that we still see today 1) The hoopla over Europe would likely not have occured under David Miliband and we wouldn't have had a largely unneeded Brexit vote and 2) There's similarities in Corbyn winning, because he doesn't actually have the support of the majority of the labour party (as seen in the vote of no confidence which he heavily lost), but because of the changes to the labour leadership process means he's largely elected by the direct public, and more to the point largely by those who're bothered enough to register as labour party members, which in 2015 was largely the left as they're by far the heaviest campaigners for Labour. Which means Labour in it's current iteration unless they change the leadership voting structure, will remain a pretty left-ist party for the forseable future, and the chance of a more centre leader like Tony Blair being voted leader are lower. And that means we could well have a period where the only significant centre party are the conservatives.
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
Everything the UK government frantically agreed to to get through before Xmas they have pulled back on - now they're still expecting to agree a transitional deal at the European Council in less than 2 weeks time whereas in reality the talks have virtually not advanced at all since they started and nothing has advanced since December.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
E.g. Mcdonnell with his nationalisation policies (a terrible idea, nationalisation destroyed steel and car making in this country) & Corbyn with policies like free student loans for all. I'd love free student loans, I have younger siblings in uni / going to go into uni who'd have to take tuition loans, but erasing all loans isn't a smart policy as a lot would say it's expensive for the tax payer. To appeal to voters, it's far smarter to say ok, let's maybe cut tuition loans by half, and let's reduce the high 6% interest rate. That way you appeal to both students and people who don't want the burden to fall on the tax payer. Economically, Labour currently are terrible.
Tax shy Britain is the reason the whole country is a dump with crap services. Take public transport in the uk, the worst and most expensive I've experienced in Europe. People voting for tax break torys are ruining the place.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...rderly_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union.pdfGov UK Website December 2017 said:"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43224785BBC March 2018 said:The EU's draft legal agreement proposes a "common regulatory area" after Brexit on the island of Ireland - in effect keeping Northern Ireland in a customs union - if no other solution is found.
Mrs May said "no UK prime minister could ever agree" to this.
The EU says the "backstop" option is not intended to "provoke" the UK.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Tax shy Britain is the reason the whole country is a dump with crap services. Take public transport in the uk, the worst and most expensive I've experienced in Europe. People voting for tax break torys are ruining the place.
Shame some of those same Tories would quite happily use Brexit to turn the UK into a tax haven with even lower taxes, then.
And that means we could well have a period where the only significant centre party are the conservatives.
Why do Labour get called out for moving left, but the same rule apparently doesn’t apply to the conservatives as they march ever further right?
Member 109952
Guest
Why do Labour get called out for moving left, but the same rule apparently doesn’t apply to the conservatives as they march ever further right?
Hmm I'd disagree with that, I'd say their policies are pretty centre atm and they're trying to move even more towards that after the last election to win back the young vote on things like student loans and housing. Not sure if you can classify those on a political spectrum as centre etc, but I'm talking more economically, e.g. with Labour wanting to abolish student loans and nationalise industries. I might be forgetting something else about the Conservatives that's making them move to the right atm but I'm drawing blanks.
Hmm I'd disagree with that, I'd say their policies are pretty centre atm and they're trying to move even more towards that after the last election to win back the young vote on things like student loans and housing. Not sure if you can classify those on a political spectrum as centre etc, but I'm talking more economically, e.g. with Labour wanting to abolish student loans and nationalise industries. I might be forgetting something else about the Conservatives that's making them move to the right atm but I'm drawing blanks.
Ah right, so you’ve already forgotten about a policy of ‘austerity’ that allowed them to massively cut back on public spending, start privatizing the NHS by the back door and leave our doctors, nurses, police and teachers all desperately demoralized?
That just counts as being ‘centre’ now?
Member 109952
Guest
Ah right, so you’ve already forgotten about a policy of ‘austerity’ that allowed them to massively cut back on public spending, start privatizing the NHS by the back door and leave our doctors, nurses, police and teachers all desperately demoralized?
That just counts as being ‘centre’ now?
Lol I don't disagree on any of that, didn't come up in my head immediately as that's been going on for about 6 years now but I'm not a fan of privatising the NHS at all nor on spending cuts to public services. In many ways in those sort of areas I'm pro Labour, I'm happy to pay more in taxes than the average person because it goes to good uses in the Country. Our public services are probably one of the best things about this country. It's just to me it's a balancing act between everything, Labours plan to simply spend lots on everything with little regard for balancing the books and most likely badly damage the economy (via things like nationalisation) doesn't sit well with me either.
but I'm talking more economically, e.g. with Labour wanting to abolish student loans and nationalise industries.
Btw, it’s funny that wanting to abolish student loans is now some far left thing. I went to uni at the end of the Major years, and back then there were no course fees. I was even given a grant ffs. Yet now the idea of free university education gets treated like something from the Little Red Book.
As for nationalization, I’m with you when it comes to things like the car industry, but how exactly did privatizing rail help improve it? If there’s no realistic choice involved on the customers part then market forces don’t have any affect. If I need a train from a to b then I don’t generally get to make a choice between one provider or another.
So instead we end up with fairly crappy service, sky high prices and the government throwing public money at them whenever the fail. Brilliant deal..
Ah right, so you’ve already forgotten about a policy of ‘austerity’ that allowed them to massively cut back on public spending, start privatizing the NHS by the back door and leave our doctors, nurses, police and teachers all desperately demoralized?
That just counts as being ‘centre’ now?
Well Cameron and Brown both went into the 2010 election, the first after the 2008 crisis, proposing identical cuts in spending, so there must be at least some argument for austerity being centrist. How long Brown would have kept it up for had we won we'll never know of course.
I think with both major parties the allegations of extremism are at the moment more based on what people think they might do rather than anything currently happening, unfair though that may be.
Member 109952
Guest
Btw, it’s funny that wanting to abolish student loans is now some far left thing. I went to uni at the end of the Major years, and back then there were no course fees. I was even given a grant ffs. Yet now the idea of free university education gets treated like something from the Little Red Book.
As for nationalization, I’m with you when it comes to things like the car industry, but how exactly did privatizing rail help improve it? If there’s no realistic choice involved on the customers part then market forces don’t have any affect. If I need a train from a to b then I don’t generally get to make a choice between one provider or another.
So instead we end up with fairly crappy service, sky high prices and the government throwing public money at them whenever the fail. Brilliant deal..
It's not, I'm not saying no student loans = left now, the point I was making policy wise a lot of people (whom I'd class as the majority, but can't substantiate this) would see extraneous public spending as moving to the left, which giving everyone free student loans looks like. In comparison traditionally I'd say being conservative means you're also more fiscally conservative / not open to as much public spending. That's why I'd see the Tories looking to move some of the burden of student loans (hopefully on interest rate / cutting the loan size) back to the taxpayer away from the individual could be seen as 'moving left'. Obviously not exact terms though and just how I see it.
Actually on the rail industry I'm inclined to agree with you, a large part of it can be classed as a 'public service' as essential infrastructure, and there are hidden costs that come about with privatising (and as well downsides to privitisation, where companies chase profit as the expense of the average person, as we see now with house builders like Perisimmon raking in absolute fortune and returning that to shareholders at the expense of building more quality houses). It's just history hasn't been kind to nationalisation, and there's a tendency for complacency to kick in in business when they don't have strong competition in their industries. Of course what happen to the steel industry for example doesn't help either. When it was nationalised I believe lots of small steel makers were forced to become a part of the British Steel group in the 60s, and over the next decades it's slowly withered away untill there's not much of it left (profitable anyway). I don't know, on the rail industry it could work, but there's also so much that could go wrong too.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,199
Well Cameron and Brown both went into the 2010 election, the first after the 2008 crisis, proposing identical cuts in spending, so there must be at least some argument for austerity being centrist. How long Brown would have kept it up for had we won we'll never know of course.
I think with both major parties the allegations of extremism are at the moment more based on what people think they might do rather than anything currently happening, unfair though that may be.
A centrist proposing a non-centrist policy doesn't mean they're not doing something that's right-wing.
A left-wing argument would've been that taxes had been reduced massively starting from the Thatcher era, and New Labour - while increasing public spending - never really did much to reverse that. Things like corporation tax have been cut down massively, as has the top-rate of income tax. Arguments against them being increased tend to revolve around the potential danger to business etc, but then that's also fundamentally a right-wing argument, I'd say.
Thatcher shifted the paradigm and it's never really gone back since. Plus, while austerity was a convenient guise, the Tories are generally committed to having a smaller state anyway - it's a key aspect of their philosophy.
It's not, I'm not saying no student loans = left now, the point I was making policy wise a lot of people (whom I'd class as the majority, but can't substantiate this) would see extraneous public spending as moving to the left, which giving everyone free student loans looks like. In comparison traditionally I'd say being conservative means you're also more fiscally conservative / not open to as much public spending. That's why I'd see the Tories looking to move some of the burden of student loans (hopefully on interest rate / cutting the loan size) back to the taxpayer away from the individual could be seen as 'moving left'. Obviously not exact terms though and just how I see it.
Actually on the rail industry I'm inclined to agree with you, a large part of it can be classed as a 'public service' as essential infrastructure, and there are hidden costs that come about with privatising (and as well downsides to privitisation, where companies chase profit as the expense of the average person, as we see now with house builders like Perisimmon raking in absolute fortune and returning that to shareholders at the expense of building more quality houses). It's just history hasn't been kind to nationalisation, and there's a tendency for complacency to kick in in business when they don't have strong competition in their industries. Of course what happen to the steel industry for example doesn't help either. When it was nationalised I believe lots of small steel makers were forced to become a part of the British Steel group in the 60s, and over the next decades it's slowly withered away untill there's not much of it left (profitable anyway). I don't know, on the rail industry it could work, but there's also so much that could go wrong too.
I think with steel there’s also the question of whether it would have happened anyway though as the world started to globalize. I’m not really in favour of nationalizing competitive goods industries like that anyway though, it just ends up smacking of protectionism.
What I always found sad was that nationalization just gets treated as a dead end where innovation will inevitably stagnate. We should be looking at ways to bring across the main benefits of free market companies to a state run organization. Government itself kept completely out of operations, staff/management incentivized on results like a private company etc. There’s no logical reason I can see why running a service for non-profit or for profit should determine its effectiveness and efficiency.
A centrist proposing a non-centrist policy doesn't mean they're not doing something that's right-wing.
A left-wing argument would've been that taxes had been reduced massively starting from the Thatcher era, and New Labour - while increasing public spending - never really did much to reverse that. Things like corporation tax have been cut down massively, as has the top-rate of income tax. Arguments against them being increased tend to revolve around the potential danger to business etc, but then that's also fundamentally a right-wing argument, I'd say.
Thatcher shifted the paradigm and it's never really gone back since. Plus, while austerity was a convenient guise, the Tories are generally committed to having a smaller state anyway - it's a key aspect of their philosophy.
When Labour and Conservatives propose the same policy then that policy is centrist by definition, which was my point. I'm not claiming for a minute that austerity is centrist for all time, just that as a response to the 2008 crisis, it was.
NinjaFletch
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 19,818
When Labour and Conservatives propose the same policy then that policy is centrist by definition, which was my point. I'm not claiming for a minute that austerity is centrist for all time, just that as a response to the 2008 crisis, it was.
Then that's a flawed definition that supposes that anything Labour proposes is inherently left wing.
Obviously that's not the case.
Then that's a flawed definition that supposes that anything Labour proposes is inherently left wing.
Obviously that's not the case.
I don't know about 'anything that Labour proposes' but in general I tend to think of Labour as left wing, Conservatives as right wing, and policies that both of those agree on as centrist. I doubt I'm the only one, but who knows, maybe I am.
Share: