Forum menu
It has very little to do with this thread. This is the UK government thread and the UK has left the EU
It has everything to do with this thread. It is absolutely fundamental to the poor economic situation which is a cause of labours unpopularity and rapprochement is hugely popular and labour's refusal is costing them popularity
BTW. we still haven't finished leaving
When the polls say the opposite
No, they don’t. They show a warming to the idea across the whole country. How that is distributed across the country is a quite a different thing, and key to elections.
You and the other main political commentators refuse to discuss this.
You are not discussing it, you are just shouting the headline followed by insults, but I will have a go at discussing it and see how much you are actually willing to listen.
The same problems in the UK are being replicated across Europe, the oligarch driven right wing economic policies that are stealing any economic growth for the few and disadvantaging the many. With assets inflating at a far higher rate than wages it is driving up the economic inequality and driving down living standards. The same dogma across Europe and the UK is too increase growth, but without redistribution of wealth growth is actually making the situation worse not better, those that have are getting richer, those that don't have shrinking ability to buy even a few crumbs.
EU rules force government investment to be "corporatised" resulting again in increased corporate profits and inflating assets at the expense of decent wages for decent jobs.
The only real advantage of re-joining the EU in the current environment is freedom of movement, which is something I am all for and something I took advantage of before it was ripped away. But the major economic problems we face cannot be solved by going back into the EU, the world needs to change to a fairer distribution economy, and the EU like the UK is heading in the opposite direction.
The absolute submission of our governments to the wants of the oligarchs is the biggest problem we face at the moment, and the EU are no more tacking that problem than the UK are.
I am very pro europe, I think I have made that very clear over many years, but I also know that just joining the EU alone if it fixes anything, only fixes only a very tiny part of the problems we face.
biggest swing was labour to conservative. Reform got very little.
Yup, that is my understanding, ie that not a lot of Labour support is going to Reform. And since Labour has lost a considerable amount of support in the last six months, whilst the Tories have remained static and Reform support has increased massively, it suggests that Labour are losing support to the Tories whilst the Tories are continuing their trend of hemorrhaging support to Reform.
But whatever direction support is moving among parties it clear and consistent that about 47-50% of the electorate support either the Tories or Reform, all the opinion polls show that. It is quite an astonishing figure, the last time the UK government was this unpopular with voters Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were prime ministers.
And when you consider that the Tories are led by Badenoch and Reform by Farage it doesn't suggest that rejoining the EU is foremost on voters mind.
Most of what is written in this Chat is an accurate reflection of facts or impact.
Labours unwillingness to access the only funding left (no gold, no oil,no deregulation) is taxation of wealthy people. Reeves reaction to the press around non dom taxation which is morally correct and a relatively small amount of money demonstrates the Labour fear of the rich.
Historically that fear wasn't as front and centre due to other revenue sources above. The wealth transfer in the last 20 years has also been a power transfer that allows the wealthy to influence successive government's. Priministers regardless of political position are held to ransome by the markets and the wealhy.
Not sure this is fixable i any meaningful way.
Some Labour dude and Tory dudette at the darts courtesy of the gambling industry but both quick to point out their support of prostate cancer awareness which was a theme for the event. ****ing sportswashing chancers
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
Unfortunately this is true.
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
Unfortunately this is true
This is nonsense not true at all. It the myth shouted by wearhervane politcuans. And chancers. Its 4 years to the next election. Just think how public opinion could be changed by truthfulness from labour.
But the major economic problems we face cannot be solved by going back into the EU, the world needs to change to a fairer distribution economy, and the EU like the UK is heading in the opposite direction.
Rejoining the customs union would give an huge boost. Regaining some of what we have lost economically. Brexit has cost us hugely
That is answered in the whole post if you can be bothered reading it.
Unfortunately this is true.
Is it? We are told it extremely loudly and clearly but since it is by the same people who promised us the sunny uplands I have to have some doubts.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
So it's not surprising to me that this still continues.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
Yep, it was the first action of the tech bros manipulation felt in the UK, concentrating on brexit is actually the misdirection there is a far bigger war for hearts and minds going on, and we are losing.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
Yes they have been. Now personally I would start by seeing how brexit has failed to address those motives and then go onto that, just possibly, peoples correct grievances were abused by the brexiteer elite but maybe you disagree?
I believe people did and still are correct to be upset at the political situation and feel unrepresented. Pretending brexiteer elites didnt abuse that though seems counterproductive.
Lets ask why the sunny uplands havent appeared and dont allow the elite to use the excuse they were undermined.
Only on here do so called 'centrists' seem to get so much stick..I mean for those who seem to use it as a thinly veiled insult on a constant basis, what do you think the word even means?
For me, it means 'balanced' and 'moderate', but you'd be forgiven as a casual reader on here, for thinking it means the devil incarnate.
Centrists do need holding to account as they told us so much good stuff about Labour’s trajectory.
I mean, who are these mysterious and malevolent centrists you speak of?
I only voted labour to try and keep the tories out...I'm nor really impressed with starmers Labour so far, but I'll take that over conservatives/reform.
My default vote is liberal democrat, and I'll likely go back to that in the next Locals and the next GE.
exposing yourself as being intellectually bankrupt with petty insults
Calling me 'intellectually bankrupt' is a petty insult in itself, hahaha!
Bunch of berret wearing Ernesto "Che" Guevara wannabies. to coin a (un?)popular opinion, it really like 6th form common room politics on here sometimes. Make sure mummy washes your 'smash the system' t-shirts, and stay safe out there all!
“of course one reason for labours unpopularity is Europe” I didn’t think that it needed to be urgently tackled.
You may not, but for me, it's the single largest political issue in the UK right now, so it has every right to be talked about ina 'UK politics' discussion'.
You can't just pretend the EU doesn't exist, unless you are Corbyn, Starmer, Truss, Banedoch etc.
For me, it means ‘balanced’ and ‘moderate’, but you’d be forgiven as a casual reader on here, for thinking it means the devil incarnate.
If you decide it means "balanced" and "moderate" you do count as a "centrist" and so someone who doesnt understand your own biases and confuse your ideology with something balanced and moderate.
As a quick test do you think Joe Minchin is someone to vote for?
For the UK if you vote lib dem and figure you need to compromise then its unlikely you would be classified as the devil incarnate (the orange book nutters who screwed the libdems aside. For anyone who feels like disagreeing just look at the main paymaster for that lot and how now how is paying for gbeebies). If you think the tories and labour should serve you then you might have a problem.
In theory I am a centrist but in reality I think I am a minority and so it needs to be a compromise. The "centrists" dont tend to accept this.
In theory I am a centrist but in reality I think I am a minority and so it needs to be a compromise. The “centrists” dont tend to accept this.
We'd have to dissagree on the definition in that case.
The “centrists” dont tend to accept this.
I accept that and it's why I would call myself a centrist...
If we break it down into basic questions:
1) I think we should have an Army, police force and a judiciary - that makes me right wing by definition.
2) I think we should all pay tax to provide healthcare, schools, social care, etc... that makes me left wing.
Conclusion: If we take the average of the above then that makes me centrist.
Conclusion: If we take the average of the above then that makes me centrist.
Not really since even in your two statements you are confusing very different positions.
Your first one is basically anarchism vs authoritarianism. This is completely different from Left or Right. Anarchism can be either Left or Right and likewise so can be authoritarianism. For example Stalinism also ticks that box although if you go for Leninism its debatable (I would go for yes) or Marxism (as in Marx own view in which case I stick him in the no but also implausible).
Your second case you need to look at State Socialism adding Bismarck to the search term, Its tricky to say thats left wing to be honest.
Conclusion: Overly simplified.
Conclusion: Overly simplified.
I'd agree, terms like left and right actually mean very little to me, in this context. Political problems require the correct solutions.The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
Some 'ideal' solutions might be more left or right than others, some might be more authoritatian or liberal, so once you build up a big picture with hundreds, or even thousands of problems/questions, you end up with a great big and messy scatter graph that only has one common trend...
All those pretty little dots are mostly concentrated toward the center, rather than the extremes, hence the term 'centrism' I guess?
As a quick test do you think Joe Minchin is someone to vote for?
I have no idea who they are.. a quick google turns up an estate agent, A US senator, and a male model in the top results... so I wouldn't like to comment!
The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
Sometimes the correct solution benefits a small section of the population, but those in most need.
Both of these are too simplistic. Politics is necessarily chock-full of value judgements about what sort of costs and benefits we care about, and which people are deserving of them. Often this is disguised by proxy arguments about facts which aren't really the root source of the disagreement (which is why you then get denialism and the promotion of junk science). And sometimes, people just don't care about the costs, because of what they see as their principles.
I've had decades of experience of this in climate science. But see also, more recently, "sovereignty".
The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
So, at the risk of simplifying, utilitarianism? Which leads on us onto the classic transplant counter argument. You have gone in for a checkup and are perfectly healthy but are a perfect match for five patients needing transplants. Should we sacrifice you?
All those pretty little dots are mostly concentrated toward the center, rather than the extremes, hence the term ‘centrism’ I guess?
That seems a rather strong assumption which brings us onto.
I have no idea who they are
Lets go with the senator and how they are described as "moderate" and "centrist". See how much you share with them. Hopefully not a lot.
Lets go with the senator and how they are described as “moderate” and “centrist”. See how much you share with them. Hopefully not a lot.
I had a quick skim read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Manchin - I would say I think he's a bit of a wrong-un, I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
Sometimes the correct solution benefits a small section of the population, but those in most need.
I'd agree with that, but simple questions... I'd like to think I'm not morally or 'intellectually bankrupt' enough to not see that nuance, I would hope it's implied - by way of if the least fortunate are given a larger, sensible helping hand that is disproportionate to those who are better off, we all still benefit, as those people will hopefully be more happy, healthy and productive, thus lowering the burden they have on society as a whole.
So giving the less well off a bit more (reletivley speaking), would result in a net beneft for all, IMO.
................................................
In other news, this is quite interesting..
The chancellor has said the government is "absolutely happy" to look at joining a pan-European customs area after the EU said it is open to British membership.
Earlier this week, EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said Brussels "could consider" allowing the UK into the Pan Euro Mediterranean Convention (PEM) as part of a "reset" in discussions between the UK and the EU.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News' Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: "It was really interesting to see Maros Sefcovic this week suggest that the UK might be welcome in that Pan Euro Mediterranean customs framework.
"We are absolutely happy to look at those different proposals because we know the deal the previous government secured is not working well enough, not for small businesses trying to export, it's not working well enough for large businesses either.
"We're grown up enough to admit that, whereas the previous government said there were no problems at all."
If I may interrupt the crisis facing moderates/balanced/centrists of what to call themselves and go back on topic, ie the UK government, I initially thought the sentiments behind this headline were reasonable :
Starmer praises Trump's role in Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal
You can't argue with that I thought, and yes Trump should be praised and encouraged for his role. But then I read this:
The prime minister used the call to lay out how his government was "deregulating to boost growth".
Earlier this week, Sir Keir announced plans to block campaigners from making repeated legal challenges to planning decisions for major infrastructure projects - while his chancellor hinted on Sunday that she would support expanding Heathrow Airport.
A 45 minute call to the US president and Starmer thinks that his plans for deregulation in UK planning is a worthy topic of discussion? Coz like Trump really cares?
Starmer really is desperate to be accepted in Donald Trump's and Elon Musk's little gang isn't he?
As the article goes on the to say :
Trump himself has supported a deregulatory agenda - a view he shares with adviser and tech billionaire Elon Musk, who before taking up a US government position complained about regulations standing in the way of his companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78xmp1vkljo
I would say I think he’s a bit of a wrong-un, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him.
And yet he is a "centrist/moderate". See the problem?
Starmer really is desperate to be accepted in Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s little gang isn’t he?
It is somewhat problematic especially since the CMA chair has just been sacked since he wasnt sufficiently enthusiastic about Starmers "pro-growth" model. Luckily the former head of Amazon UK has stepped up as a interim boss.
Its getting back to the good old days where those boring regulations were torn down to allow for growth.
I am sure this time though we wont have privatised profits and socialised losses.
If I may interrupt the crisis facing moderates/balanced/centrists
I'm certainly not having a crisis...it seems the American definition of moderate is anyone who isn't a raving facist....the most supprising thing is they are using that term at all, intsead of crying Libs, or marxist snowflakes, etc.
But that doesn't change what the word means, I could call the sky green all day long, it wouldn't change the fact that it's blue (or grey in my case!)
I’m certainly not having a crisis…it seems the American definition of moderate is anyone who isn’t a raving fascist
Which should have you thinking its not a simple definition. I was thinking about asking which country, time period and indeed axis to use but lets simplify it to one issue.
Slavery. Roughly we can propose the axis as:
Anti slavery
Centrist: not quite sure what this should be? Maybe the British position where we banned it but werent fussed about it elsewhere or maybe indentured servitude?
Pro slavery
I’m certainly not having a crisis
Well you are posting multiple posts about it and it's not the first time you have expressed your displeasure at me using using the term. For some reason you seem to think that I am referring to you when I talk about centrists in connection with the current government.
And you have previously told me that you prefer to be described as a "democratic socialist", which isn't a term that I am prepared to use to describe Keir Starmer and his Cabinet.
I used to use the term "moderates" when it was more fashionable to do so. Now the widely used and accepted term is centrist. I fall to understand what the problem is - from what I can figure out it is fine to use the term centrist if you are agreeing with them but unacceptable if for any reason you are criticising them.
It makes no sense to me. You can spend all day slagging off leftists and I will remain perfectly happy with being called a leftist.
Shy Tories are a recognised phenomena it now turns out that we also have shy centrists. Presumably it is for the same reason - a little embarrassed about what they believe in/support.
Slavery. Roughly we can propose the axis as:
Anti slavery
Centrist: not quite sure what this should be? Maybe the British position where we banned it but werent fussed about it elsewhere or maybe indentured servitude?
Pro slavery
Well you're just plain wrong if you ask me... 'the Dictionary' has entered the chat:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
adjective: centrist
having moderate political views or policies.
On what planet is being pro-slavery a centrist/moderate view? And what are you smoking?
Well you are posting multiple posts about it and it’s not the first time you have expressed your displeasure at me using using the term. For some reason you seem to think that I am referring to you when I talk about centrists in connection with the current government.
My apologies, you were the first example I found to hand, from the usual suspects, I didn't mean to single you out.
What angers me is people (you included) using the word 'centrist' as not only an insult, but completely abusing the term to imply something else entirely.
a little embarrassed about what they believe in/support.
If I was embarrased about my views, I wouldn't be openly commenting on this topic.
And what are you smoking?
I am genuinely surprised that you apparently cannot see the point being made. During the pro/anti slavery debate William Wilberforce will definitely have been considered an extremist, certainly not a moderate/centrist.
At the other end of the spectrum a slave trader will have also been considered an extremist.
A moderate/centrist would have likely fudged the issue with "no more transatlantic slave trade but maybe indentured servitude from say Ireland so that plantation owners in the West Indies don't suffer too much, and maybe they could be legally guaranteed their freedom after 20 years"
I am genuinely surprised that you apparently cannot see the point being made.
The point is you don't understand what one simple word means.
A moderate/centrist would have likely fudged....
Oh, would 'they' now? Really. Again. moderate and/or centrist doesn't mean what you think it does. You either don't understand, or you are purposely abusing the word.
Which is it?
You seem reasonably intelligent, and I actually agree with a lot of your sentiment on other topics, so my money is on the latter.
Well you’re just plain wrong if you ask me… ‘the Dictionary’ has entered the chat:
Excellent. Glad to hear it. Sadly its a bit of a tautology defining centrist as moderate and vice versa which brings us onto.
On what planet is being pro-slavery a centrist/moderate view? And what are you smoking?
Lets cast our mind back to lets say about 1770 and the Somersett case which is seen as one of the main triggers for the anti slavery movement. Initially this was led by a bunch of extremists like the Quakers but gradually it became more widespread with the house of commons voting in favour of gradual abolition in 1792 before being slapped down by the house of lords who wanted to see proper evidence for and against.
There was gradual progress but only in 1833 was it finally abolished. Even then it came with huge payments to the "owners" as well as an extremely dubious "apprenticeship" lasting another seven years.
So stepping forward a decade at a time from the 1770s. What is the centrist/moderate position at each point?
More depressingly given modern slavery we could stay at todays date but switch countries and ask the same question.
Labour shold be laying the blame for the UKs woes firmly where they belong when the answer is brexit. NHS short of staff. Tory brexit. Shortage of hospitality staff. Tory brexit. Gdp woes tory brexit etc etc and have the data to hand so when farage and co try to bluster they have the facts to nail them with.
Take control of the narrative. Polls show that they would be pushing at an open door
Brexit is a symptom of the problem not the cause, going back into the EU without fixing the inherent economic inequality (on both sides) would be like painting someone with jaundice pink and telling them that its cured.
I don't know if you have been watching Europe recently, Italy, the Netherlands and in the past weeks Austria have governments to the right of the tories. Macron refuses to respect the vote at the last election, demands loyalty from the left and will not offer a single concession to them. In Germany the greens in the past couple of days have actually voiced concerns over the rise of the right and its promotion by Trump and musk, the centrist parties are falling over themselves to criticise the greens and ass kiss the fascists.
You are still looking at this through the prism of 2016, a lot has changed since then, the power and money behind brexit is making the same changes across europe, political funding is destroying democracy around the world, the UK is not as unique as you seem to think it is in laying down and welcoming the shift to the right and the oligarchs in.
A functioning EU that puts its citizens first should/would/could be a great thing, but it is no longer moving in that direction, the UK has played a big part in destroying that ideal, but it isn't a just a UK problem, the disease has spread and is rotting the vital organs of democracy.
Well, back to the UK Government…. We’ve had the lack of action on the Post Office scandal and contaminated blood, the withdrawal of the winter warmth allowance, the complete let down of WASPI women, rowing back on their own non-dom policy. Now the Labour Government appear to be abandoning any climate change objectives with the proposals to expand airports - a policy that many front benchers were vocal in opposing. However, could it be planning policies that break the camel’s back? I’ve discussed before the plans for removal of local control and the proposed lack of any involvement in local democracy but the demonising of anyone with an opinion and putting them in a “nimby” box is a new low for Labour. Unless there’s a fundamental shift in Government where they actually take back control from the huge corporations and foreign, speculative, investors then the housing problems will only deepen. Threatening to override local democracy, belittling anyone with a different opinion and bulldozing through (literally) could bring this Government down. George Monbiot (who I don’t always agree with) has written a good piece in The Guardian today -
If the mantra is always growth instead of redistribution, then the environment is going to the the clear victim.
could bring this Government down
Presumably you mean Keir Starmer's government? Because with a majority of 174 we are guaranteed a Labour government for the next 4.5 years.
Before the general election I thought that Starmer probably wouldn't last much longer than about 6 months, but currently I don't see any evidence that he is in any way under threat, despite reducing Labour to Liz Truss levels of support (the Tories didn't hesitate to sack Truss when she reduced their level of support to about 25%)
There seems to be very little in terms of disquiet among the Parliamentary Labour Party. It would appear that the purge of the left, withdrawal of the Labour whip, and imposed Starmer-friendly parliamentary candidates, has worked very well for Starmer and McSweeney.
Which is all great news for the Tory-Reform Axis, they are definitely the main beneficiaries.