Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

Brexit ahead 51%-49% in the latest poll.

Come On!!!!!!

Thought we'd learned not to trust polls. Latest in the Times is 54-46 Remain. Most of them are well within the margin of error. My gut feel is that Brexit is edging it at the moment, not because of the arguments but because the young won't vote in numbers, the lazy bastards.

Do you think there should be a minimum turnout % for the result to be valid? For something as important as this I'd favour an Australian compulsory voting system, with a 'don't care' option for those who don't care.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Thought we'd learned not to trust polls. Latest in the Times is 54-46 Remain. Most of them are well within the margin of error. My gut feel is that Brexit is edging it at the moment, not because of the arguments but because the young won't vote in numbers, the lazy bastards.

Do you think there should be a minimum turnout % for the result to be valid? For something as important as this I'd favour an Australian compulsory voting system, with a 'don't care' option for those who don't care.

I'm quite amazed at how many people remain so apathetic about what is perhaps one of the most significant and important issues of the past 50 years facing these shores. A number of (particularly) women that I've asked simply respond by saying stuff like,"I don't really know much about it", or "It's not really going to effect me, is it?" or "What time is TOWIE on?" and I suspect there's a huge amount in that category who will either not turn out at all, or vote Remain simply because it's the status quo. At least, I suppose, the latter is an honest position.

I've always been in two minds about making voting compulsory. If voters are that unmoved by the issues or choice of candidates then I'd only support compulsory voting provided there was a 'none of the above' option (rather than 'don't care') on the ballot paper, and it carried some weight, i.e. if a significant minority (say 40%) voted NotA then we could kick out the candidates and start all over again. That would be a lot of fun.

 

[sb_73]

Excellent, Labour to launch an enquiry into anti- semitism and draw up a code of conduct on racism. A couple of talking shops. Hint - just chuck them out. Quickly and with no second chances. Just like the Tories do. They had a tradition of snobbish anti semitism in some parts of the party in the olden days but it is dying out, whereas in Labour it is growing. I think it's because they are trying to win seats in areas with big Muslim populations where the populist thing to do is having a pop at Israel (and by extension Jews, because these cretins really can't tell the difference); plus the influx of very nasty 2 dimensional extremist party members given access by the stunningly stupid Labour leadership election rules. Now they have to go through all the grief that Kinnock went through again kicking these ****ers out, but that won't happen while Corbyn draws all his support from them. This could be the end of Labour, and it may not be a bad thing if they continue on this road as they don't provide a credible opposition, which is what we need.

I am willing to bet that these enquires and codes will prominently reassert the right to attack 'Zionism'.

 

[rangercol]

Thought we'd learned not to trust polls. Latest in the Times is 54-46 Remain. Most of them are well within the margin of error. My gut feel is that Brexit is edging it at the moment, not because of the arguments but because the young won't vote in numbers, the lazy bastards.

Do you think there should be a minimum turnout % for the result to be valid? For something as important as this I'd favour an Australian compulsory voting system, with a 'don't care' option for those who don't care.

There probably should be a minimum % turnout in such an important vote.
But if I'm honest, the lower the turn out the higher the chance of Brexit imo.
I wonder if Brexit are edging it because the economic arguments seem to be cancelling each other out and people are deciding out of principle? Certainty hope so!
Of course you're quite correct about not trusting polls. I was just being a little mischievous.

 

[sb_73]

There probably should be a minimum % turnout in such an important vote.
But if I'm honest, the lower the turn out the higher the chance of Brexit imo.
I wonder if Brexit are edging it because the economic arguments seem to be cancelling each other out and people are deciding out of principle? Certainty hope so!
Of course you're quite correct about not trusting polls. I was just being a little mischievous.

With a 60% turnout (forecast by some) and a tight result the decision will be made by about 30% of the electorate, which just seems wrong. Although of course those who can't be arsed have voluntarily sacrificed their right to a voice, and to complain about the result. I can understand apathy in elections, even general elections, to a point. But in a referendum where the choice is very simple, the consequences relatively clear (on one level at least, we are either in or out) and your opinion is of direct influence and relevance, I find it difficult to excuse.

 

[rangercol]

With a 60% turnout (forecast by some) and a tight result the decision will be made by about 30% of the electorate, which just seems wrong. Although of course those who can't be arsed have voluntarily sacrificed their right to a voice, and to complain about the result. I can understand apathy in elections, even general elections, to a point. But in a referendum where the choice is very simple, the consequences relatively clear (on one level at least, we are either in or out) and your opinion is of direct influence and relevance, I find it difficult to excuse.

Seems to me that nearly all elections are won with some kind of arguable minority.
I agree that this doesn't seem right, but, if people can't be arsed to vote in this particular referendum, they only have themselves to blame if they don't like the result.
Although i do sympathise with anyone who genuinely isn't sure which way to vote and don't have strong views about the sovereignty issue etc, as the arguments from both sides are a mixture of scaremongering and misinformation. I also believe that a lot of the arguments involving immigration and the economy are evening themselves out and it's hard to know which side of the argument is correct. I suspect that there is a little truth in all the arguments and a lot of exaggeration. One thing that surely must be true is that no one can know for sure what the situation will be a few years down the line, whether we stay in or leave?

I'm hoping that the out camp will concentrate on the sovereignty issue running up to polling day, as I feel this could be a deal breaker for many who are undecided.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Seems to me that nearly all elections are won with some kind of arguable minority.
I agree that this doesn't seem right, but, if people can't be arsed to vote in this particular referendum, they only have themselves to blame if they don't like the result.
Although i do sympathise with anyone who genuinely isn't sure which way to vote and don't have strong views about the sovereignty issue etc, as the arguments from both sides are a mixture of scaremongering and misinformation. I also believe that a lot of the arguments involving immigration and the economy are evening themselves out and it's hard to know which side of the argument is correct. I suspect that there is a little truth in all the arguments and a lot of exaggeration. One thing that surely must be true is that no one can know for sure what the situation will be a few years down the line, whether we stay in or leave?

I'm hoping that the out camp will concentrate on the sovereignty issue running up to polling day, as I feel this could be a deal breaker for many who are undecided.

I'm 100% with you in terms of your desire for this country to reclaim its sovereignty, but I do find myself increasingly wondering precisely what this mystical sovereignty is. I fear that whether the UK is in or out of the EU there's only so much sovereignty that we can exercise (if indeed one exercises sovereignty). We will still have to make concessions to trade with our neighbours and I suspect most governments are in the pocket of multinationals and powerful figures. Our people will still want to move freely through Yerp which means reciprocal arrangements all round. I wonder what exactly we will freer to self-determine that we have don't have the power to do today; freer to self-determine without behind-the-scenes agreements and the like?

 

[Chaz]

As far as this mythical concept of 'sovereignty' goes, there will be zero difference in or out.

 

[YorkshireHoopster]

Spot on. When British politicians bleat on about democracy this is what they mean. Perpetual rule by a minority party because the electorate finds the opposition too lunatic in their views to ever give them enough support at the ballot box to make them a credible opposition. Give it another 15 years for Labour to sort itself out and the Tories to implode under a sea of scandal. The only thing worth betting on is whether the number of financial scandals exceeds the ones based on sleaze. Unless you fancy a punt on who the next Tony Blair may be. I suspect he or she is still at Uni.

 

[Stroller]

Excellent, Labour to launch an enquiry into anti- semitism and draw up a code of conduct on racism. A couple of talking shops. Hint - just chuck them out. Quickly and with no second chances. Just like the Tories do. They had a tradition of snobbish anti semitism in some parts of the party in the olden days but it is dying out, whereas in Labour it is growing. I think it's because they are trying to win seats in areas with big Muslim populations where the populist thing to do is having a pop at Israel (and by extension Jews, because these cretins really can't tell the difference); plus the influx of very nasty 2 dimensional extremist party members given access by the stunningly stupid Labour leadership election rules. Now they have to go through all the grief that Kinnock went through again kicking these ****ers out, but that won't happen while Corbyn draws all his support from them. This could be the end of Labour, and it may not be a bad thing if they continue on this road as they don't provide a credible opposition, which is what we need.

I am willing to bet that these enquires and codes will prominently reassert the right to attack 'Zionism'.

Of course they should reassert the right to attack the actions of the Israeli state, if that's what you mean by Zionism. Anti-Zionist sentiment should not be silenced for fear of being portrayed as anti-semitic racism. There are undoubtedly a few racists in the Labour party and they should, as you say, be chucked out, but I don't think Ken Livingstone is one and I don't think Naz Shah is either for that matter. Both of them have made stupid statements and deserve to be censured, but I'm not sure expulsion is called for in these instances. Livingstone, however, seems to have gone a bit batty, so should no longer have a prominent position in the party. I would suggest that there are still just as many racists in the Tory party, by the way.

As to a credible opposition, Corbyn has as many opponents on the Labour benches as he does on the other side, so he is unlikely to survive to fight a general election. A particularly bad result in the local elections could see demands for him to resign. Thankfully the House of Lords has been doing a good job of reining in the government, inflicting regular defeats.

 

[Chaz]

That would be the same House of Lords that Labour want to abolish as an anachronism. So it's ironic that the upper house is doing the job of the supposed opposition. One does wonder if Labour are only there to generate media stories...

 

[Stroller]

That would be the same House of Lords that Labour want to abolish as an anachronism. So it's ironic that the upper house is doing the job of the supposed opposition. One does wonder if Labour are only there to generate media stories...

Or the media to generate Labour stories.

I'm not sure that Labour want to abolish the Lords, but it should be reformed. I'd like like to see appointments to the upper house made on a PR basis.

 

[sb_73]

Of course they should reassert the right to attack the actions of the Israeli state, if that's what you mean by Zionism. Anti-Zionist sentiment should not be silenced for fear of being portrayed as anti-semitic racism. There are undoubtedly a few racists in the Labour party and they should, as you say, be chucked out, but I don't think Ken Livingstone is one and I don't think Naz Shah is either for that matter. Both of them have made stupid statements and deserve to be censured, but I'm not sure expulsion is called for in these instances. Livingstone, however, seems to have gone a bit batty, so should no longer have a prominent position in the party. I would suggest that there are still just as many racists in the Tory party, by the way.

As to a credible opposition, Corbyn has as many opponents on the Labour benches as he does on the other side, so he is unlikely to survive to fight a general election. A particularly bad result in the local elections could see demands for him to resign. Thankfully the House of Lords has been doing a good job of reining in the government, inflicting regular defeats.

Sorry Stroller, if anti Zionism means denial of the state of Israel's right to exist, which I think at root it does if Zionism means the development and protection of a Jewish nation in the geographical area of Israel (which I know it does), then it may be a valid 'political' position but it is very different from opposing and challenging some (or even the majority) of the policies and actions of the government of Israel (which I would both understand and agree with). It means you want to see the Jewish state removed and even if that doesn't equate to killing all Jews (or transporting them to the USA) it's pretty obviously anti Semitic. Livingstone, Galloway (who I see has waded into this as well) and these extremist newcomers are explicitly and unashamedly anti Zionist. The way they slyly allude to 'the Israel lobby' and its mysterious influence seriously creeps me out. They are also Hamas fellow travellers, as is Corbyn, and while Hamas has softened its tone recently, it is an Islamic fundamentalist explicitly anti Semitic organisation (read their Covenant). These people also couldn't give a **** about the Labour Party, it's just a vehicle as far as they are concerned, a means to an end, and that end is, I strongly suspect, anti democratic, given their inability to tolerate any opposing views.

Even if the Conservative Party was packed to the rafters with racists that doesn't provide any excuse for the Labour Party to be the same. It really pisses me off because the Labour Party, the only political organisation I have ever been a member of (years ago before the waves of cynicism overtook me), which has always been a bit of a shambles precisely because it allowed dissent, is now an unpleasant, incompetent, unrepresentative shambles, and increasingly intolerant. The nastiness hasn't even started yet, all these Corbynistas who joined specifically to vote for him will soon start reliving the 80s and the Militant Tendency/ Socialist Action, under the Momentum banner. Even some of the people, like Jon Lansmann and Simon Fletcher, are the same as way back then. Except now they have a leader who agrees with them. Thank God he's not a very good one.

Hopefully I have overstated all of the above.

 

[Stroller]

Sorry Stroller, if anti Zionism means denial of the state of Israel's right to exist, which I think at root it does if Zionism means the development and protection of a Jewish nation in the geographical area of Israel (which I know it does), then it may be a valid 'political' position but it is very different from opposing and challenging some (or even the majority) of the policies and actions of the government of Israel (which I would both understand and agree with). It means you want to see the Jewish state removed and even if that doesn't equate to killing all Jews (or transporting them to the USA) it's pretty obviously anti Semitic. Livingstone, Galloway (who I see has waded into this as well) and these extremist newcomers are explicitly and unashamedly anti Zionist. The way they slyly allude to 'the Israel lobby' and its mysterious influence seriously creeps me out. They are also Hamas fellow travellers, as is Corbyn, and while Hamas has softened its tone recently, it is an Islamic fundamentalist explicitly anti Semitic organisation (read their Covenant). These people also couldn't give a **** about the Labour Party, it's just a vehicle as far as they are concerned, a means to an end, and that end is, I strongly suspect, anti democratic, given their inability to tolerate any opposing views.

Even if the Conservative Party was packed to the rafters with racists that doesn't provide any excuse for the Labour Party to be the same. It really pisses me off because the Labour Party, the only political organisation I have ever been a member of (years ago before the waves of cynicism overtook me), which has always been a bit of a shambles precisely because it allowed dissent, is now an unpleasant, incompetent, unrepresentative shambles, and increasingly intolerant. The nastiness hasn't even started yet, all these Corbynistas who joined specifically to vote for him will soon start reliving the 80s and the Militant Tendency/ Socialist Action, under the Momentum banner. Even some of the people, like Jon Lansmann and Simon Fletcher, are the same as way back then. Except now they have a leader who agrees with them. Thank God he's not a very good one.

Hopefully I have overstated all of the above.

I think you are overstating at least some of it Stan. I don't think many anti-Zionists wish to deny the Israeli state a right to exist - the majority are simply against the way it behaves. It is a perfectly legitimate political stance in my view, and shouldn't be portrayed as being inherently racist. I'm anti-Tory, but that doesn't mean that I question the legitimacy of their existence.

Unlike you, I've never been a Labour party member, but was a constant supporter until it became apparent that Blair had turned it into the left wing of the Tories. The party is in a period of transition, but I am hopeful that it will rediscover its roots after the current upheaval. Corbyn is not the man to take it forward, but the next leader will have to pay heed to the fact that there is an appetite amongst the young for a true left-of-centre alternative.They are not all crazy anarchists.

 

[sb_73]

I think you are overstating at least some of it Stan. I don't think many anti-Zionists wish to deny the Israeli state a right to exist - the majority are simply against the way it behaves. It is a perfectly legitimate political stance in my view, and shouldn't be portrayed as being inherently racist. I'm anti-Tory, but that doesn't mean that I question the legitimacy of their existence.

Unlike you, I've never been a Labour party member, but was a constant supporter until it became apparent that Blair had turned it into the left wing of the Tories. The party is in a period of transition, but I am hopeful that it will rediscover its roots after the current upheaval. Corbyn is not the man to take it forward, but the next leader will have to pay heed to the fact that there is an appetite amongst the young for a true left-of-centre alternative.They are not all crazy anarchists.

I think those people who are anti Israeli policy but not denying Israel's right to exist need to rebrand themselves, because anti Zionism is a specific much more extreme position. If they are reluctant to do this then that's all I need to know about them and their true agenda. They should also reacquaint themselves with Labour Party history regarding Zionism and the true position of some of the Muslim groups they ally themselves with. They are stuck in a now old fashioned knee jerk anti imperialist/ anti colonialist stance which Israel got lumped into, when they should be working out what it means to be left wing in a globalised, capitalist world which is here to stay beyond just being 'against it'.

It took twenty years for the party to rid itself of these entryists, and even then it didn't totally work as people like Livingstone, MacDonnell, Corbyn and for a long time Galloway survived. It took two true left of centre men to realise the threat and deal with it - Michael Foot to kick off the process and Neil Kinnock to do the seriously dirty work, at considerable personal cost to himself. I see no one in a leadership position who will do this now. Sadly, I genuinely hope that Labour gets wiped out at the elections next week and the 'coup' that these nutters spend most of their time worrying about happens very quickly. Even Andy Burnham looks like an attractive alternative at the moment, and he is the definition of lightweight.

This fiasco makes it much more likely that we see many years of Tory government, potentially with Boris Johnson at its head. Nightmare.

 

[Stroller]

I think those people who are anti Israeli policy but not denying Israel's right to exist need to rebrand themselves, because anti Zionism is a specific much more extreme position. If they are reluctant to do this then that's all I need to know about them and their true agenda.

Probably just my own misuse of the term, mate.

 

[sb_73]

Probably just my own misuse of the term, mate.

I'm going a bit OTT I know. It's just that at the moment I have no one left to vote for with even the vaguest hint of hope.

 

[TheBigDipper]

I'm 100% with you in terms of your desire for this country to reclaim its sovereignty, but I do find myself increasingly wondering precisely what this mystical sovereignty is. I fear that whether the UK is in or out of the EU there's only so much sovereignty that we can exercise (if indeed one exercise sovereignty). We will still have to make concessions to trade with our neighbours and I suspect most governments are in the pocket of multinationals and powerful figures. Our people will still want to move freely through Yerp which means reciprocal arrangements all round. I wonder what exactly we will freer to self-determine that we have don't have the power to do today; freer to self-determine without behind-the-scenes agreements and the like?

I am as puzzled as you.

I feel "sovereignty" is being used by politicians as a rallying cry to attract some people to vote "leave" who otherwise don't agree with what those politicians stand for. As you say, sovereignty probably doesn't exist in the way it's being sold. What we will get if we do leave is the ability for a government to pass new laws which reduces the protection ordinary people get from their state or international corporations. Theresa May certainly wants to do so in the name of "security". Some people will be voting "leave" purely to have more self determination and freedom, but are likely to end up with less if we do actually pull the pin and leave. That can't be right, can it?

 

[sb_73]

Seems to me that nearly all elections are won with some kind of arguable minority.
I agree that this doesn't seem right, but, if people can't be arsed to vote in this particular referendum, they only have themselves to blame if they don't like the result.
Although i do sympathise with anyone who genuinely isn't sure which way to vote and don't have strong views about the sovereignty issue etc, as the arguments from both sides are a mixture of scaremongering and misinformation. I also believe that a lot of the arguments involving immigration and the economy are evening themselves out and it's hard to know which side of the argument is correct. I suspect that there is a little truth in all the arguments and a lot of exaggeration. One thing that surely must be true is that no one can know for sure what the situation will be a few years down the line, whether we stay in or leave?

I'm hoping that the out camp will concentrate on the sovereignty issue running up to polling day, as I feel this could be a deal breaker for many who are undecided.

I'm 100% with you in terms of your desire for this country to reclaim its sovereignty, but I do find myself increasingly wondering precisely what this mystical sovereignty is. I fear that whether the UK is in or out of the EU there's only so much sovereignty that we can exercise (if indeed one exercise sovereignty). We will still have to make concessions to trade with our neighbours and I suspect most governments are in the pocket of multinationals and powerful figures. Our people will still want to move freely through Yerp which means reciprocal arrangements all round. I wonder what exactly we will freer to self-determine that we have don't have the power to do today; freer to self-determine without behind-the-scenes agreements and the like?

Just heard on the wireless that the single biggest issue for those intending to vote leave is immigration, and that is what I expect the Brexit campaign to major on in the run up to the vote. Of course they need to be clear that actually imposing controls on immigration from the EU firstly requires a UK Government prepared to do it, which is not a given, and secondly rules out membership of the EU internal market where free movement of people is a given (so no Norway/Switzerland type deal with the EU). I suspect the sovereignty stuff is just too vague for most people, especially the undecideds, to have top of their list.

 

[finglasqpr]

In this country we are largely pro-EU. Some would say that's because we have received huge benefits from our membership of the EU. On the flip side, you could say our membership of the Eurozone caused the financial crisis that we experienced and are still experiencing We have received huge benefits from our membership but we are now making a net contribution to the EU budget and I feel the vast majority of people will remain pro-EU for years to come as we see the overall benefits of membership for ourselves and the entire continent. For me, our own sovereignty is not an issue. I feel Irish first and European second. I am comfortable with our laws being subject to EU law made in Brussels by elected members from each country including our own. Because we have MEP's there, we have a say in what is agreed. Immigration is an issue in every country but again, I feel my country has a handle on the issue. We have hundreds of thousands of Europeans living and working in this country and making a contribution to the society they live in. Some of them are the nicest people I have ever met and I am perfectly happy with them being here as they enrich the country in lots of different ways. The same could be said for the thousands of non-EU immigrants we have here. Most of them are professionals who the government have brought into the country to fill gaps in the labour market caused by graduates emigrating to other countries. I feel blessed that such people want to come to our little island. Because we are not part of Schengen, every person who enters the country apart from those crossing the border with Northern Ireland are asked to show their passport or prove their nationality. As we are an island state and we have procedures in place to try and prevent illegal immigration, I feel we have control over illegal immigration although no system is 100%.

That is the situation in your neighbouring island. Sovereignty is not really an issue and immigration is not an issue to us within the EU even though at least 20% of our population are non-Irish.