Does May want to win?

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's not properly defined at the moment, but this article:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...need-to-make-this-a-sane-brexit-a3562946.html

contains some sensible proposals of what it might look like.

Significant that the Macron administration (who will be very influential) are saying that we could retain single market membership without free movement.

The article makes a lot of sense.

The situation has changed now. May put a lot of emphasis on hard Brexit to appease UKIP voters and EU-hostile MPs in her own party.

The result is that Labour gained almost as many Ukippers as the Tories did, and that the softer Brexit approach has far more influential supporters than it does detractors in Parliament.

I almost wonder if Cyndy is right regarding the "Does May want to win?" question.

A lot of this will be down to pure chance, but when you analyse what's happened, everything has fallen almost perfectly into place to allow the UK to go for a soft Brexit approach.

- May pushed for hard Brexit to please eurosceptics
- Called snap election to try and increase mandate
- Lost workable majority, forcing a re-think of the plans
- Had to bring in DUP, which will advocate closer integration due to the border issue

And crucially, May must now rely on cross-party support. This would have been very problematic with a hard Brexit, but much easier for a soft Brexit as most MPs on both sides want that anyway.

What this will do is share the responsibility of the Brexit outcome across more than one party. It won't just be the Conservatives doing it. And if they are blamed, they just have to point to the General Election result and shift the blame to the public. "We WOULD have had a hard Brexit, but you voters didn't give us the mandate".

It's almost like a higher being has played all of this out like a game of chess, where soft Brexit can be pursued without any serious ramification for any of the political parties.

All in all, May will be able to go for the soft Brexit she probably wants deep down, but it's going to seem as though her hand was forced. Was this all intentional? Probably not. But it's worked out well for her in this regard.

And if the Brexit agreement can be tailored correctly, where we maintain benefits while being able to curb immigration, I suspect voters won't be that bothered.

There is the issue of "sovereignty", but unlike immigration, it's nowhere near as visible. All the fuss over that will probably fade as quickly as it rose (apart from within a small group of hardline eurosceptic voters who can probably be contained without much difficulty).

All this being said, the article does refer to an interim deal. But something like that would make all of this a whole lot easier.

 

[Newchodge]

Not really. Some genuinely believed we are far better off outside the EU. They still do. Many Remainers, I'll wager, voted Remain because of the scare tactics and predictions of disaster.

Have you one scrap of evidence for that? Many Remainers voted remain because it is what they have always believed in, they are Europeans, they are part of Europe, they did not want to leave. Why do you keep on characterising Remain voters as stupid and uneducated and scared by the scare tactics, but never characterise the Leave voters in the same way?

Both sides played appalling dirty tricks. Some were taken in, on both sides, some just wanted the unobtainable 'our country back' some didn't think, because better what you know that what you don't. I voted because I believe in Europe, but if I hadn't I would have voted because Farage wanted the opposite. BUT NO-ONE KNOWS WHAT THE VAST MAJORITY VOTED FOR OR AGAINST.

So the arrogant few claim their 'side' voted for what they personally believe in.

 

[Newchodge]

Wow, that's a big deal.

When I suggested here some months ago that we could have our cake and eat it too - specifically, a restriction on free movement but with full market access - I was laughed at!

This Schrodinger's cake (sort of ) is far from a done deal, but it's looking more possible.

Well blow me down. @Clinton got it right again, or so he claims. But you have had so many positions, from Remain to soft leave to hard leave to let's not negotiate, to we can have our cake and eat it, I can't be bothered to read any more. No doubt, however it turns out, you got it right.

 

[Clinton]

Why do you keep on characterising Remain voters as stupid and uneducated and scared by the scare tactics, but never characterise the Leave voters in the same way?

You should try reading all of my post rather than just selected bits

Both sides played appalling dirty tricks. Some were taken in, on both sides...

I completely agree with all of that (and not for the first time)!

But I keep getting drawn back to this thread. Must fight the temptation!

<added>Just saw your latest post. Please never accuse me of advocating a soft leave! My position is very simple. We should have voted Remain because it's good for lots of things, but now that we voted Leave we should do it properly (and we're more than capable of thriving, economically, outside of the EU). That's my position, always has been. What's so hard to understand? No, don't answer that as I'll have to come back with yet another explanation!

 

[Ian J]

The situation has changed now. May put a lot of emphasis on hard Brexit to appease UKIP voters and EU-hostile MPs in her own party.

The result is that Labour gained almost as many Ukippers as the Tories did, and that the softer Brexit approach has far more influential supporters than it does detractors in Parliament.

I'm not sure that Brexit had much to do with the General Election result at all

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I'm not sure that Brexit had much to do with the General Election result at all

Definitely not as much as May (and/or her aides) thought it would.

That was her hook. When Corbyn showed gains in the polls, she doubled down on how she was the right person for Brexit negotiations.

Unfortunately for her, it had little effect, especially when Corbyn confirmed, multiple times, that we are going to leave. If there was any ambiguity over that, perhaps she would have had a case. But in the eyes of voters, both leaders intended to take us out (albeit with different approaches).

I also think that Corbyn's friendlier stance, focused on cooperation, resonated with a lot of voters. I suspect that even some leave supporters found May's approach unnecessarily hostile.

I remember seeing a set of opinion polls a while back where voters were asked what the most important issue was facing the country (I believe The Byre posted it a few weeks ago). It showed that the EU consistently ranked very low in terms of importance for many years, but then skyrocketed around the time of the referendum campaign.

I've always felt as though the level of euroscepticism in this country was artificially inflated by that. The British public was always wary of the EU, but within those few months the hostility exploded to whole new heights.

But now the campaign has faded away, and emotions have started to subside, the issues which have consistently ranked high in terms of importance (i.e. austerity, security, public services, the NHS and living standards) have taken the front seat again.

I find the UKIP vote in the GE quite telling. Millions of Ukippers deserted the party for the Conservatives and Labour, leaving only about 590,000 left. I suspect this figure is much closer to the amount of genuinely hardline eurosceptics in the UK who view the EU with hostility.

Everyone else, while they certainly aren't fans of the EU, have more important matters to attend to now.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Unfortunately for her, it had little effect, especially when Corbyn confirmed, multiple times, that we are going to leave.

This was the problem with all the parties. With a 48/52 split between remainers and leavers which side did they want to alienate the least.

 

[Clodbuster]

Unfortunately there are many people who cannot see beyond the "free" sweeties thrown around by Labour.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Unfortunately there are many people who cannot see beyond the "free" sweeties thrown around by Labour.

Including May who is now preparing to adopt Labour policies to stay in power. Now Corby has made austerity a bad policy she is prepared to say the same.

Might as well put Lord Buckethead in charge of Brexit.

 

[Paul Norman]

Unfortunately there are many people who cannot see beyond the "free" sweeties thrown around by Labour.

I am always amazed how anyone can with one sweep conclude why every single supporter of a certain view or party voted the way they did.

I can assure you that a lot of Labour voters have a much broader set of reasons for supporting the party than this. Just as, of course, Tory voters did not all act for one shallow reason.

 

[The Byre]

The article makes a lot of sense.

No it does not!

Adonis, along with most Brits, just fails to grasp why the EU is there. It is NOT primarily a trading bloc.

The EU is there as a guarantee for peace and freedom. That is how the people of mainland Europe see the EU. The free movement of labour is fundamental to the European project in a way that few Brits can even begin to understand.

You have to have lived under Russian occupation to understand why the EU is there.

For the Czech Republic, Roumania, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and all the other states that used to be under Russian occupation, the EU is a dream come true and they will let nothing dilute that dream.

Even the executive suites at major industries see the maintaining of the four freedoms, as fundamental to their business well-being.

 

[Clodbuster]

I am always amazed how anyone can with one sweep conclude why every single supporter of a certain view or party voted the way they did.

I think the operative word is "many"

 

[Deleted member 59730]

For the Czech Republic, Roumania, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and all the other states that used to be under Russian occupation, the EU is a dream come true and they will let nothing dilute that dream.

In our lifetimes six EU member states had nuclear weapons on their territory aimed at US.

In my lifetime Germany and the UK were bombing the shit out of each other. I learnt to count by counting the bombers taking off overhead.

 

[Paul Norman]

I think the operative word is "many"

I would challenge that, too. I suspect very few voted just on the basis of such a shallow consideration. A minority.

On either side.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Unfortunately there are many people who cannot see beyond the "free" sweeties thrown around by Labour.

Austerity isn't the only solution, you know.

There's a fairly solid economic case for investing to boost GDP growth and ultimately tax receipts. Simulation models even showed that GDP growth under Labour would be far higher than that under the Tories.

It's not perfect, of course, but they aren't intending to just spend for the sake of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

 

[STDFR33]

I would challenge that, too. I suspect very few voted just on the basis of such a shallow consideration. A minority.

On either side.

I'd imagine the student vote for labour was mainly down to the free tuition fees.

People for vote the way they do for personal reasons, selfish or not.

 

[Clodbuster]

Austerity isn't the only solution, you know.

There's a fairly solid economic case for investing to boost GDP growth and ultimately tax receipts. Simulation models even showed that GDP growth under Labour would be far higher than that under the Tories.

It's not perfect, of course, but they aren't intending to just spend for the sake of it.

Austerity is the only solution - there are simply different levels of this. Labour were going to increase the national debt by throwing money at non-productive recipients. Money should only be borrowed for capital investment that will increase income.

Student loans are just that - a loan that is only repaid when the recipient is earning a set respectable salary (well over minimum) and if not paid off after a set length of time it is wiped out.

Free tuition is counter productive resulting increasing un-suitable candidates wasting time having a ball at uni taking rubbish courses that have no bearing or should be catered for in an apprenticeship scheme

 

[Cobby]

It depends. I think it will go one of two ways:

1). The Conservatives and DUP will not be able to negotiate an agreement. They'll reach a stalemate and then another GE will be triggered quite soon.

2). They'll succeed in forming an agreement. But then conflicts will start to arise when it comes to putting through bills before everything collapses and another GE is called. In this scenario, it would probably be within the next 6-12 months, as both sides will quickly learn whether they're amicable bedmates.

It all depends on whether they have to learn this the hard way or not.

Of course, there's also the possibility that they'll get along fine and work together like a well-oiled machine. Personally though, I'd be surprised if that happens. The Conservative Party will be keeping a close eye on how this Tory/DUP team impacts electorate opinion on the run up to 2022. If things start to go south, it will become a case of damage limitation.

I'm very concerned about the effect this is going to have on Stormont and the NI peace process. With the DUP in a position to strongarm certain things out of May, and May now unable to claim impartiality toward the GFA, what May has done has been extremely damaging and set the whole thing back by a number of years.

 

[Paul Norman]

I'd imagine the student vote for labour was mainly down to the free tuition fees.

People for vote the way they do for personal reasons, selfish or not.

I dare to hope not.

Of course it is a factor. But if we are all voting for the person that gives us a more money, then we are indeed a very shallow race of people.

Of course, as neither part would have any impact on my own earnings in the short term, I have no choice but to not vote like that.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Student loans are just that - a loan that is only repaid when the recipient is earning a set respectable salary (well over minimum) and if not paid off after a set length of time it is wiped out.

Which misses the point.

Educating the population has a long term effect on prosperity. We all gain because we have doctors, engineers, scientists, artists etc etc. Controlling what courses are available can be done by other means than charging students.

(When I first heard that there were courses in surfing I thought it was a silly idea. Then I read the economic benefits. )

 

[Ian J]

I dare to hope not.

Of course it is a factor. But if we are all voting for the person that gives us a more money, then we are indeed a very shallow race of people.

I recall a time when the people were fed up with the Conservative government and it looked like Labour were going to take over but it was the fact that Labour were going to renationalise the utilities that lost them the election as many of the shareholders in British Telecom and British Gas were ordinary working men who had made a few quid on their shares and didn't want a new Labour government snatching it away so they voted Conservative

 

[Cobby]

My concern now is that this is all going to play out as a soft Brexit which is the worst of all possible worlds, IMO.

That doesn't even remotely make sense.

• Not leaving the EU is the best option, causing no economic damage.
• Soft Brexit is the best option if we cannot remain a member of the EU, wherein we accept a deal that is significantly worse than what we have now but will limit economic damage.
• Hard brexit is the worst option where we either accept a terrible deal or we simply sever ties with no deal, both of which are economically and socially damaging.

I have yet to see a convincing rational argument to the contrary.

If the UK government (current or future, Tory or Labour or Coalition) decides to not take the UK out of the EU, there'll be hell to pay.

Not really, if it doesn't happen it'll be because the economic consequences and damage are widely understood, by all but the extremists, to be worth remaining a member of the EU. At that point it won't be a government ignoring the will of the people, it'll be the government labelling the previous vote as 'out-of-date'. The polling is already indicating a swing back to Remain and as things deteriorate (which I've no doubt they will), it'll continue that way.

There is no point in going for Brexit unless we can get a better deal than we have now.

The EU itself seems determined that we shouldn't leave with a better deal as that would set a bad example.

We cannot get a better deal than we have now. It's certainly not in the EU's interest to give us a better deal than we have now. Therefore I agree, we shouldn't be trying to Brexit at all.

The only way to improve on our current position would seem to be to WTO our way, take a chance outside of the EU

This is widely understood to be worse than our current position and offers an unknown probability that at some unknown time in the future, we might get back to where we are now, and then, possibly, grow beyond it.

 

[Cobby]

Both sides played appalling dirty tricks.

There was definitely exaggeration to varying degrees on both sides, I would love to know what could be considered a 'dirty trick' from the Remain campaign?

No buses with outright (and deliberate) lies emblazoned across them.
No illegal collusion between campaigns.
No misrepresentation about why services such as the NHS suffer.
No blatant appeals to racism.

I mean, the closest you could get to 'dirty trick' from Remain was what the Leave group labelled 'project fear' - a varying array of financial groups claiming the UK would be worse off (to varying degrees) by leaving; they managed to PR spin what was essentially an evidence based consensus into an insult. I'd call that the dirty trick.

It was what it was and it's done now, but I still find it amusing to see Brexiteers trying to subtly rewrite the history of the campaign.

Yes, but you always have some MP's off sick (I remember seeing ambulances turning up at the House of Commons and MP's being taken in on stretchers to vote) and some who can't be bothered to vote. And the Tories don't have many friends.

Why, in the 21st century, do we require MP's to turn up to an old stone building in which they must not clap and vote by walking through a door.

 

[Cobby]

Way back at the beginning of May I posted this in another thread -
Take a long look at the GE campaigns and see how they were conducted. Despite continual negative press in mainstream media, the newspapers, TV and radio, the Jezza campaign targeted the young and used 21st century communication to mobilise a force for change.

For good or for bad, this has led to a hung parliament and inter party deals being made. A fairly similar situation to that under a system of proportional representation.

Get used to it folks. Modern communication speaks to the individual, instead of disenfranchising smaller groups it engages them. Perhaps the day of the massive parliamentary majority is over.

Absolutely. Communication formats are more important than ever, especially for the youth vote. The failure of the modern Conservative party and their long standing supporters is one of empathy and it touches on my ramble about privilege. The younger generation have the same cognitive abilities as their forebears, but generally have much more open and inquisitive minds.

Look at this collection:

Including May who is now preparing to adopt Labour policies to stay in power. Now Corby has made austerity a bad policy she is prepared to say the same.

Might as well put Lord Buckethead in charge of Brexit.

Unfortunately there are many people who cannot see beyond the "free" sweeties thrown around by Labour.

One can understand the idealistic young voting for Jeremy Corbyn's jam today promises but the older generation who have lived through left wing Labour governments spend, spend spend policies know that it always leads to disaster and should never vote to bring back those days especially in times when the next terrorist outrage is probably just around the corner and the Labour party's number 2 has gone on record as wanting to abolish both MI5 and armed police

Part of the credit goes to Jeremy Corbyn, of course, let's not take that away from him. He promised jam today (and let's not worry about tomorrow) and that worked spectacularly for him.

The country has ended up with the Gov it deserves, if youngsters are foolish enough to vote for unvisited bribes/promises, and the elderly are foolish enough to forget the previous Labour Gov disasters, then this is the result.

I can understand students falling for the bribe, but the more experienced voters have no excuses.

And if the youth vote was anti Brexit they would have voted LibDem?

Not one of these opinions credits young people with the agency or intelligence they claim implicitly for themselves.

We live in a country where most people can, in one form or another, access the internet, and the next generation are far more adept at squeezing relevant information from it than we are. They also have a much keener ability to spot PR spin and other disingenuous devices. That communication medium provides a form of social processing our generations never had, where logic can be deconstructed and hypocrisies highlighted - and once they are, they are made more prominent through popular support. Young people are hard to understand but they certainly aren't stupid - at least no more so than the generations before them.

For example: Why didn't they vote Lib Dem? Perhaps it was because they don't want to be burdened with an unreasonable debt from a system already stacked against them, which they'll struggle to pay back, for an education that is increasingly required but will offer little in return of wage increase or value? Or perhaps they understood that with our anachronistic voting system, a vote for the Lib Dems would simply have been a vote for the Tories and their failed austerity policies? Or, maybe it was just stupid youngsters voting for "lol free education".

It's not the 1970's. Britain is not the same. Technology is not the same. The world is not the same and nor is our place in it the same. You know the people most keenly aware of this? Young people. It seems utterly monolithic to be talking about how the youth 'voted wrong' because, "can't they see what happened last time?" and it'll be reason the Conservatives will struggle in years to come.

 

[Cobby]

Free tuition is counter productive resulting increasing un-suitable candidates wasting time having a ball at uni taking rubbish courses that have no bearing or should be catered for in an apprenticeship scheme

With regards to recent emergence of 'absurd' courses (even though some are not as absurd as we would think), do you believe these are a result of "free tuition", a thing we'd had for decades until recently?

Or could it be caused by financial incentives elsewhere in the system and the application of free-market economics?

Which misses the point.

Educating the population has a long term effect on prosperity. We all gain because we have doctors, engineers, scientists, artists etc etc. Controlling what courses are available can be done by other means than charging students.

(When I first heard that there were courses in surfing I thought it was a silly idea. Then I read the economic benefits. )

Hear hear. Education (or lack of it) accounts for a large proportion of society's problems and is also the solution to many of them. In my opinion, Education should one the biggest expenditure the government has, but, sadly, it'll continue to struggle, especially in the current climate of anti-intellectualism where the government themselves decry the very idea of expertise.

 

[The Byre]

Not one of these opinions credits young people with the agency or intelligence they claim implicitly for themselves.

One of the reasons I tend to be prejudiced against people of my own age. They 'know' what is what, what is right and what is wrong.

The reality is, that they only 'know' their bias and dogma.

The one thing we learned from the GE is that the young are beginning to find their voice - that and that it's time the voting age was brought down to 16.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

it'll continue to struggle, especially in the current climate of anti-intellectualism where the government themselves decry the very idea of expertise.

You need no qualifications to be an MP.

I do hope that younger people do get more involved. I have been trying to get the next generation interested for ages. Sadly many now think the world is as it is and they cannot make a difference.

I, and others, have been campaigning on copyright issues for many years. We now find that whenever a new initiative needs tackling it is the same 60 - 80 year olds doing all the letter writing.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I do hope that younger people do get more involved. I have been trying to get the next generation interested for ages. Sadly many now think the world is as it is and they cannot make a difference.

To do that, older people need to stop repeatedly telling younger people that politicians are greedy, dishonourable, untrustworthy and only in it for themselves.

When many people in this country repeatedly bash the political profession, how can we expect to inspire younger people to take up these roles in future?

It really doesn't help.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40264755

Thoughts, @Clinton ?

 

[Newchodge]

To do that, older people need to stop repeatedly telling younger people that politicians are greedy, dishonourable, untrustworthy and only in it for themselves.

When many people in this country repeatedly bash the political profession, how can we expect to inspire younger people to take up these roles in future?

It really doesn't help.

It may not help, but when it is true of the majority we need to be honest. And point out that we can get rid of the greedy, dishonourable, untrustworthy ones.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It may not help, but when it is true of the majority we need to be honest. And point out that we can get rid of the greedy, dishonourable, untrustworthy ones.

It's not true of the majority though. At all.

What evidence do you have that the majority of the 650 MPs are greedy, dishonourable and untrustworthy? What has each individual done to be deserving of such a label?

Believe it or not, most of them want to do what's best for the country and their constituents. They just have different ideas of how to accomplish that.

Even the Conservatives have valid reasons for what they do. The annual deficit is nearly £50 billion per year. They aren't just pushing through austerity because they enjoy making people suffer for no particular reason.

 

[Newchodge]

The vast majority will change their policies to keep office instead of sticking to their principles. That is both dishonourable and untrustworthy.

Huge numbers take their MP's salary and also maintain a number of external paid positions which interfere with the ability to do their job as an MP. That is greedy.

Many have conflicts of interest, for example by owning shares in private health companies or security companies but still vote in legislation that allows those companied to get huge profits, from which they benefit. That is dishonourable and greedy.

An appalling number claim expenses for normal living costs, that is greedy and dishonourable, although, unfortunately, legal.

 

[Newchodge]

Even the Conservatives have valid reasons for what they do. The annual deficit is nearly £50 billion per year. They aren't just pushing through austerity because they enjoy making people suffer for no particular reason.

The conservatives have just announced that austerity was a political decision, and perhaps should now be dropped. A POLITICAL DECISION NOT A FISCAL NECESSITY. They made people suffer, but now they are saying they will change their minds!

 

[KM-Tiger]

What austerity?

See how the "savage cuts" have reduced the national debt.

 

[Ian J]

The conservatives have just announced that austerity was a political decision, and perhaps should now be dropped. A POLITICAL DECISION NOT A FISCAL NECESSITY. They made people suffer, but now they are saying they will change their minds!

Oh come on. That's not what was said and not what they meant either.

When we were left in the brown stuff in 2008 how do you suggest we should have got out of it?

 

[Newchodge]

What austerity?

See how the "savage cuts" have reduced the national debt.

The cuts in disability benefits. The cuts in all social security payments. The cuts in all local council funding. The cuts in the NHS the cuts in the police, the cuts in the armed services. The fact that the Tories were so f***ing useless that all those cuts merely increased the debt does not mean that millions of ordinary people haven't suffered cuts. Ask any doctor or police officer or fire officer or ambulance service. Ask the teachers and the library services. Funding for all public services have been cut beyond the bone to the point where they fail to function effectively.

For a political whim.

 

[Newchodge]

Oh come on. That's not what was said and not what they meant either.

When we were left in the brown stuff in 2008 how do you suggest we should have got out of it?

We had a choice - grow our way out of it or cut everything while still giving trillions to the banks so they would not fail. We could have done what Iceland did - blame the banks, take the hit and move on.

 

[Jeff FV]

There are two great touchstones in the mind of the voting public:

1. The Conservatives are "better" at the economy
2. The NHS will fare better under Labour.

However, I think for the squeezed middle/just about managing (Labour's term/Conservative's term) trust in the tories to be better at the economy has eroded because of

a) Austerity, for example there is a teacher being quoted as voting tory in 2010 & 15, but Labour this time round. He understood the need for belt tightening (read pay freeze) at the time of the crisis but its just going on, and on and on

b) Hard Brexit. I think many, many people realised the damage that this will do to the economy and those many, many people who normally vote tory to keep the economy strong (at the expense of their other principles) felt they (the conservatives) didn't have the economy as their primary focus this time.

Or, it could just be as is so well summed up in this Alex cartoon:

 

[The Byre]

When we were left in the brown stuff in 2008 how do you suggest we should have got out of it?

Easy - the government chose to pick up the tab.

The UK and US government should have allowed the various banks to default and leave the tab with their creditors. That should have left various Saudi and other greedy bastards holding the baby!

Propping up the banks will prove to be one of the great mistakes of history!

 

[Mr D]

These cuts in the NHS? How much was the budget cut again since 2010?
£111 billion to £123 billion is a cut? Looks like an increase but its a cut?
Just the Conservatives have tended not to increase the NHS budget as fast as Labour did.