The sheer stupidity of holding a referendum on the future of the U.K.'s membership of the European Union is becoming more apparent by the day.
I know of no one who really believes that the UK public thought this an issue of real priority before David Cameron made it the focus of political concern. And, equally, I know of no one who thinks he did so because he thought it was the most pressing issue on his agenda. This referendum has always, and inevitably, been about the long-festering divisions within the Conservative Party, and what is now very obviously apparent is that it will not solve them.
I can completely understand why some are calling for the resignation of David Cameron. A person who puts the resolution of his own problems in managing his own party above the interests of governing in the national interest and of the state itself does not look to be fit for the office of Prime Minister. That these difficulties might reflect his own level of competence does not help.
Nor does the fact that in making the referendum the focus of his attention he has had to put aside a whole year of the government's legislative programme by offering a Queen's Speech with almost nothing to discuss within it help his case: this gives the very strong impression that he and his government have no idea why they are in office.
The recklessness of first calling and then facing the very real possibility that he may actually lose this referendum is unforgivable.
The fact that it has opened up space for the racist elements within British politics, and given them mainstream voice, is even worse.
That there is a real risk of significant cost to the UK as a result of Brexit reveals foolhardiness: every risk that he and George Osborne talk about is one that they created which the UK need not have faced.
And, whilst all this is going on, the rest of politics — where there is so much to discuss — is on hold.
All of this is of normal concern to me, but over the weekend I have spent some time thinking about the discussion I will be having on Wednesday evening at the Hay Festival with Andrew Simms when the subject will be how quickly we can change economics to meet current need. I am naturally optimistic: you cannot be an advocate for change if you do not think it is possible. This weekend the antics of those engaged in the referendum debate have been the cause for some pessimism on my part.
At least, that was until I realised that within the UK (perhaps in particular, because of its innate conservatism) we always need a crisis as a precursor for change. Whatever happens I think that the EU referendum debate will provide such a crisis.
There is a growing crisis of confidence within, and about, the Conservative Party.
Although I find much of the debate on immigration distasteful it is also true the discussion of this issue has raised real questions on the nature of identity, assimilation, change and community which need to be addressed.
I welcome the fact that John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas are now appearing on the same platform with each other, as a matter of choice.
Debate on democracy is also a good thing: it does however require that we now discuss how we wish to choose those who govern us in the future.
The surprising consensus on economics has indicated that from whichever part of the political spectrum comment comes from there is a value to cooperation, which is good news.
The distaste for bogus data, and both sides have been guilty of this, should surely be a lesson to politicians in the future.
But, most of all, what is most readily apparent is that too many politicians have been too willing for too long to play a game in a bubble that is contemptuous of most people and which does not consider the consequences for them. This referendum may, in this respect, mark the end of politics that respects those in that bubble in a way that was never wholly deserved.
If, however, (and it is a very big if that I am not wholly sure is justified) enough politicians can realise that it is now their job to create nothing less than a new political order designed to win support for the change that is necessary to embrace the issues that will challenge us in the 21st century then this referendum may just have been worthwhile. If the eventual outcome is the appropriate politics that is required to address the challenges that have become apparent during the course of the referendum campaign then we will have won, after all.
Those challenges are enormous. Climate change is at its heart; let's not pretend otherwise.
So too is robotics; indeed the challenges that it presents are, to me, the pivotal issues that will now bring about change precisely because we will have no choice about seriously reappraising how we organise society as a consequence of the readily apparent and immediate issues that robotics will raise when it still remains the case that climate change can be ignored.
And this issue raises identity in so many ways, including within the economy, the community, the family, and so much more, all of which will need to be addressed.
Just as we will also need to discuss how those communities work together to build the viable political agreements that are necessary to deliver the quite extraordinary processes of change which will be necessary if we are to adapt over the next 20 or 30 years ( which will also require a complete redesign of the tax system, which I already thinking about).
To put it another way, we face the most extraordinary political, economic and social challenges in the future and, totally depressingly, we are spending our time engaged in a complete distraction that is all about wholly unsuccessfully seeking to resolve the fights of the past. You could get depressed about this, or alternatively you can hope that the futility of the referendum debate, which is so very obviously understood by the vast majority of people, can itself be the precursor for change to something better.
I will live in hope.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I’m a right winger and think OMFG is a bad idea, as are for example overt State subsidies for the day to day operations of a private company in Teeside making virgin steel. There are people who think these are good ideas and have connected them to the referendum on EU membership being a good referendum to have. To say you don’t know of anyone who believes it’s a priority is sad commentary.
But I also note you use a variety of names to comment and never use a UK email address
Surely, Mr Pradeep, this EU referendum is a classic example – for use on MBA and politics courses – of a SOLUTION looking for a PROBLEM.
The previous Labour Leader, Ed Milliband certainly made many mistakes, which is why he lost the 2015 General Election, but he was surely right in setting his face against such a Referendum, and refusing to call for one, on the grounds that it would be a major source of instability and damaging to business confidence, and would probably not resolve anything.
Surely events are proving that Ed called this one far better, and far more in the interests of the country, than did David Cameron, who really is living up to his nickname of “Dodgy Dave”.
Ed Miliband, for that is the spelling, knew of people for whom an EU referendum was a priority. He argued against them but didn’t claim ignorance of them.
Neither he nor anyone else on his side has yet provided evidence that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are on average rubbish countries.
I presume you are deliberately missing the point
And so will be deleting you and all related contributions
The cynics’ perspective: there is no foreign policy agenda in the current government. It’s all about domestic politics; and that, in turn, is all about the internal politics of Conservatism. Plus an opportunistic advantage in the distraction it it offers.
Cameron is doing his job. No less, no more; and Osborne is doing *his* job, managing the end stages of his success in accelerating the concentration of wealth.
Some of your criticism, on this issue, does have a sting to it: Osborne revels in his success while lesser men denounce him for ‘failiures’ that represent his agenda succeeding; but Cameron has good reason to wince at the criticism of his ‘Brexit’ referendum debâcle, because it is already failing in all of its political objectives.
The political effectiveness of conservatism – with a small ‘c’ or a large one, or an ‘N’ for Neoliberalism – has been severely damaged by the Referendum campaigns, already; and there’s another three weeks of it before the result and the ‘throwing the toys out of the pram’ phase.
It has, to put it mildly, been mismanaged; and this shows up Cameron as politically inept.
*That* is a criticism to make him resign, and rightly so, by his own principles and his own measure of success and failure.
Two prongs of neoliberalism framing the EU debate makes for a sickening despair. Leave is in effect advocating the paradox of ‘insular globallism’ (USA) where more control of a country’s population by divide and rule enables more dominance over poorer nations and all to benefit elites. Remain wants to spread ideological control by finishing the ‘convert the EU project’.
But you are correct. Having a fight we don’t want might bust both bubbles. The gamble though is immense, because if Leave wins the ‘victory’ will only be framed ever more on insular perspectives that would be built up in time into some a!beit diluted version of a nauseating jingoism.
I share both your worry and hope. We are putting ourselves through this on the whim of those that argue over how they want to have their greed-and-exploitation system arranged. My visual metaphor is Andy Dufresne crawling through the sewer pipe to get cleansed by the rain.
The ‘futility’ of the referendum debate is a little off the mark: I would say that the quality of the debate has doomed it to futility.
There are great principles at stake, and serious material issues about our prosperity and well-being; to face our doubts at last is hardly futile, given the damage that that the ‘Eurosceptics’ do: but we have a ‘debate’ of fear, nationalism with a stench of racism, and ineptly-communicated economic forecasts which have left the electorate unmoved.
Are there no speechwriters? Are there no campaigners? Or is the very pinnacle of our campaigning crude appeals to nationalism with a dose of fear, self-interest, and fiction?
And what of Britain’s reknowned creativity and skill in advertising and PR? Given the staggering amount of money riding on the outcome – and the political interests of the dominant media owner in our island nation – I would’ve expected one or both sides of the ‘debate’ to be a media tour de force.
And yet it is utterly dismal. No commercial product or movie or service has ever been ‘campaigned’ so ineptly.
This, and the inability of our political mediocrities to put an argument together principles and passion to the public, is the root of the debate’s futility.
It’s not that there’s nothing in it; it’s that nothing of any worth is put into the debate. And that, in turn, casts the shadow of futility upon our faltering democracy.
Richard; I agree with what you say here. This is why for the past few months I have been calling for a boycott of the referendum / spoiling one’s ballot: https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/the-eu-referendum-and-beyond-when-it-can-be-right-to-just-say-no-to-a-fake-choice#comment-section
At first, the reaction to my call was generally very negative. However, that has changed; more and more people – both politicos and ordinary citizens – are becoming more and more fed up with the awful referendum campaign, with both the Remain _and_ Leave options. A striking instance was Any Answers on Saturday afternoon, where this mood was apparent, and many were increasingly at odds with Anita Anand when she kept insisting, “But you only have two options, so which is it to be?”
What think’s thou, Richard?
Rupert
I see your point
And I understand why you make it
But I am with Caroline on this one: we have to stay in despite all the problems
What I would urge is that dissent at least be a positive act: not an abstention from the process
Richard
Caroline Lucas is blinded and does not see the struggles of the indigenous poor. She provides no policy on how to address this and spouts rubbish about how the e.u has brought us workers rights. Workers rights have been destroyed in the last 40 years.
Sorry, but I disagree
Working people would be vastly worse off without the EU anft he TUC agrees
Although we don’t hear much of it these days
I’ve been thinking about some of the same things. My guess is that while more and more people in politics are starting to cotton on to how bad things have become, and the referrendum will have been a catalyst for that, most of the politicians responsible (and I blame mostly the Conservative party) will not change in the foreseeable future (until they start becoming decimated at the ballot box).
And so that leaves the prospect of the same sort of thing happening in the next General Election. (ie. think of the awfulness and scaremongering of the Tories attacks on Miliband, magnified even further).
And given that we probably have to say that a Tory victory is more likely than a labour victory that leaves another term of the Tories in power and exactly the same sort of things happening for another 5 years. The good news though is that they’ll probably lose in 2025.
I suspect it will be much earlier than that
The parroting of the “it was in the manifesto” so-called commitment to a referendum was also done (IMHO) to try and attract a few UKIP voters.
Democracy is a strange beast! Personally I would like more referendums, one for every major political and constitutional decision. It will be very uncomfortable for some, but so is democracy. We always need to be clear what we believe in, and if we are to be governed by the people for the people then our direction of travel cannot be controlled by a narrow minded elite.
I think we elect politicians to make decisions
We do, but they seem to find it impossible to make a lot of them, and the media do not seem to allow much – if any – movement of the Overton Window.
So I support a referendum model that is much more ‘Swiss’ in its approach, which I see as offering a little more hope for upsetting the elite view.
Exactly. Mostly people can only relate to the economy by their own household. Government is essentially about managing the economy at a macro level. Of course it’s not being managed at all well, and hasn’t been for as far back as one can recall. But it’s still better than leaving a major economic decision like this to voters. I remember calls from the origins of Ukip for a vote on ‘keeping the pound’, which was even more crazy.
I think that Corbyn and McDonnell have done exactly the right thing, keeping their contributions low key. Despite their previous scepticism they chose ‘Remain’ to unite the Party. There was no benefit to be had from ‘sticking to their principles’ if we do stay in, which is most likely. If we vote out the tories will take all the flak when the economy bombs, as it is sure to do anyway soon – and it will leave a Corbyn/McDonnell government with more freedom to implement socialist policies, such as capital controls and stopping imports of unethically produced goods (bad for workers, bad for animals, bad for the environment).
And elected representation has become an easily corruptible and captured method of government. If we accept our fate is in the hands of a rag tag bunch of MP’s and Lords then we deserve what we are given, in my view. Several centuries of Westminster government has proven it is many things, but democratic it is not!
So what instead?
I do not think there is a utopia
“Mostly people can only relate to the economy by their own household.”
“But it’s still better than leaving a major economic decision like this to voters.”
That comes across as very patronising Carol, did you really mean this?
What you describe I can accept is a problem with our education system for many (which should of course be addressed), but not a state of affairs that says centralised autocracy is better than decentralised democracy in my opinion.
Where would you place yourself on Thomas G. Clark’s authoritarian/libertarian/left/right chart I wonder?
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-difference-between-left-and-right.html
I read what Carol said in the first statement as glaringly obviously true
And for that reason the second is too
I am a left of centre libertarian pragmatist
I agree with Keith to an extent as well as Richard’s reasonable remark the we can’t have a utopia. The problem here, as I see it is that if we are to have a democracy then the we need a very engaged and educated ‘demos.’ Which means we will need educational institutions and a media that promote this otherwise plebiscites in a dumbed-down culture will be knee-jerk whose results might even be worse.
Or we live in the real world where candidly we have had something like a democracy for some time
That’s the best we’ll get
What instead?
How about for starters allowing people to decide what form of democracy they would like for their own government.
I also agree there is no single utopia to please all people, however our current system is about as close to utopia for the very few and dystopia for the very many! Change is inevitable in such circumstances as history always shows us.
Actually, I do not agree with that
I think parliament should decide on the reform
That is its job
And I think it can do it
Then if so Richard, we agree that our education system is failing to produce a majority of well educated and liberated citizens and instead is creating a majority of poorly uninformed controlled subjects (which is of course how it is supposed to be in the eyes of the few)
If we are to live in a democracy (or the sort that I believe in anyway) a prerequisite is that we treat our people equally from the outset in life and provide them all with a high quality citizen focused education, promoting the values of communal effort and shared growth instead of private greed and individual reward.
Their active participation as a citizen in the important decisions that affect all of our lives (such as this EU vote, amongst many others) would reflect the combined interests of a far less divided and unequal population (in part because the principles of economic democracy would be taught in our schools and universities as well as political democracy).
There is one thing I do credit Tony Blair for in his thinking (although not in his delivery) in that education is at the heart of social change and the nature of that education is the underlying force that drives our society.
Our own society today reflects very closely the education structures that have been enforced upon it over the centuries. While we continue to pander and support the rights of the privileged few, there will be no real and lasting social change.
Has there ever been a society of the sort you wish for?
I don’t think mass political engagement will ever be likely
Do you disagree?
A little satire for this holiday Monday.
Has there ever been a “tax system” of the sort you wish for?
I don’t think “mass tax compliance” will ever be likely
Do you disagree?
To dream is to imagine a better future, even if it has never existed before and perhaps will never exist in our lifetime.
But not to dream, and fight for the chance for it to come true, that would be a real waste of our time. Would it not?
I am pragmatic: I always say my hope will not be fulfilled
I am not reading that into your comments
But you have decided your preferred direction of travel, even though you may never reach your destination.
That is an important choice for all of us to make, otherwise we will each be washed around in the tides, blown around by the wind, and pushed around by those more powerful.
We are perhaps quite similar in this respect (I think?).
And what is hope for anyway, if we are destined to remain forever lost in the wilderness!
Point taken
And appropriately made
An interesting alternative perspective to the Mitchell/Dawkins view on the EU referendum.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/how-david-mitchell-and-richard-dawkins.html
Richard Dawkins in the Times (Paywall)and David Mitchell http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-referendum-parliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchellhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-referendum-parliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell have made some good points about Cameron’s abdigation of leadership over this debate in order to sellotape together the splits in the Tory party.
Political parties and leaders are voted into office to make certain decisions for us based (hopefully) on data and knowledge gathered by some very clever people. To have set this to the plebiscite to decide without us having access to all the information is riddiculous and foolhardy. As you have said Richard, all it has done is raised the xeophobic and rascists discourse and completely obliterates the real problems in this country such as low wage, zero hours, tax avoidance, climate change, an eviscerated and partially privatised NHS.
The sooner another general election happens the better. I disagree with those who say that a Tory win is a certainty because I personally don’t think it is no matter how much the right wind media tell it is.
I am very hopefull and optomistic for the future. I think that a majority of people have come to realise that the Tory utopian dream is everyone else’s worst nightmare.
I read David Mitchell: he is right
You may be too
What Mitchell is saying was put very eloquently By Edmund Burke to his Bristol constituents:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
The politician should have an educative function but when politicians themselves are not educated (despite Eton which seems to be doing something else which can’t be called education) we are in dire straights.
Politicians are voted in on their parties manifesto, the problem is the system is choked by political correctness and the phenomena of narrative politics
I don’t think EU membership even made it onto my list of concerns,
the top item on my list is Climate Change,
it seems to be the one thing that will exacerbate every other concern on the list,
I was confused by the reference to robotics. Are you referring to the productivity gains which can be achieved with greater automation?
I think increased use of robotics could be highly beneficial if the productivity gains are shared with workers. Historically (e.g. since at least the 1970s), productivity gains haven’t been shared very much. Instead, productivity gains have been largely retained by company owners and investors, contributing to the rise in inequality over the last 40 years or so.
I’ve also not seen much evidence that productivity is actually on the increase. Perhaps it is, but the opposite seems to be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/uk-productivity-gap-widens-to-worst-level-since-records-began
It would be great if we could harness some of the massive investment in IT, robots and so on for something more useful than fancy handheld gadgets and toy drones. Perhaps it would be possible to direct productivity gains towards much-needed initiatives (e.g. tackling climate change), and/or take the dividend in better public services and/or shorter working hours. Are you intending to advocate action along these lines, and if so how?
There is a widespread belief that robotics will radically change work over the next twenty years eliminating much current employment e.g. Most commercial driving
This may be wrong, but it seems likely to be true in many areas including conventional preserves such as accountancy
I think you may need to do some reading: the past is a not a predictor of the future here
Perhaps I should read up a bit more. My initial instinct, though, is to see this as a continuation of the process which has, for example, seen typing pools replaced by word processing computers. Or cartographers replaced by GIS systems. Or offset litho printing replaced by digital printing systems.
I have seen talk in the media about robots taking jobs. If this was already happening, we should be seeing productivity gains. But, as per the link I posted, we are not. Maybe we will do in the next 20 years. If we are about to see a big jump in productivity over recent levels, it will be wonderful, since increased productivity will create wealth (either in increased output, or in the same output with lower inputs). The question to be discussed, I suspect, is really about how those productivity gains would be harvested and shared.
Discussion of this issue goes back at least to the late 1800s, when Ned Ludd smashed up some knitting machines. The widespread, and false, myth perpetuated since then has been that Ludd and his followers bore antipathy towards the machines themselves. Their grievance was more accurately about how the benefits from the productivity increases were shared out. Ludd and followers felt that they should have been entitled to some of the gains. Instead they lost their jobs.
We’re likely to see similar discussion if things like self-driving cars can be made to work. I don’t think it’s a particularly new issue, although it is a very important one.
In my view you are on exactly the right train of thought m-ga.
Under private financial capitalism all (or virtually all) of the financial gains from productivity increases always go back to the owners of capital and their chosen business leaders who make it happen for them.
This has certainly been the case since the introduction of the first manufacturing machinery, computing equipment and robots will be no exception in my opinion.
Such capital investments are paid for out of the surpluses generated from previous human endeavors, appropriated by private financial capitalists as their legal and just rewards, leveraged into new money through debt creation and used to further increase productivity and reduce labour costs in future.
While there are some significant gains for those workers skilled in designing, building and maintaining such equipment, the vast majority of workers with more traditional skills will suffer an immediate stagnation or more likely reduction in their incomes.
The Luddites were not opposed to progress per se, but they knew for certain they and their families were going to be the victims of it, because they no longer owned the manufacturing process which had previously been operated under an artisan self employed system.
Factories and mechanisation, owned by venture capitalists, removed the means of existence from large swathes of the mostly rural population causing the mass movement to cities and the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Has there been real progress in science and technology as a result – of course and we should welcome that.
Has there been social, community and environmental devastation as a result – absolutely and we MUST learn from that.
Is history going to repeat itself – sadly most likely!
There is a huge and increasing demand for care services. I don’t see how we’ll run out jobs to do in the foreseeable future. We just need to decrease working hours/weeks.
Unfortunately though most of the work in care services is at the bottom of the income scale so we would be replacing skilled high paid work with semi-skilled lower paid work. It’s like closing the pits and expecting miners to work in leisure centres and still be able to support their families.
It is true that much care work is not highly skilled but it will still need to be done by humans and paid for. There is scope for an increase in work which requires imaginitive and artistic skills as well. I really think it is pointless to plan for a future which requires few human workers. What we need now and in the future is a rethink of how to make work more enjoyable and anxiety free (mostly because of poor management skills).
It would have been much more useful and democratic to have a referendum on TTIP, a deal very much shielded from scrutiny. another big boys club of the global elite. How have we lived without this terrific harmonisation. How to harmonise animal welfare, just a little testing allowed. How I hope there will be change for the good of all, can hardly dare to believe it.
It seems many people (me included) feel they’re between a rock and a hard place. But we are where we are. The quality of the debate – if one can call it that – has plummeted to new lows and that’s saying something. So I feel sorry for the ‘average’ voter who is unlikely to have the time / inclination to delve deeper into the issues and is reliant upon MSM headlines, posters and pamphlets.
If I may be permitted a cross-posting from another site, the recent blog from John Ward, an ardent ‘Brexiter’ for many years, sums it up rather well in his customary satirical style – https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/sunday-opinion-calling-brexit-a-global-economic-headwind-is-like-saying-glass-bottles-cause-liver-failure. Whatever one’s inclination, it is good practice to evaluate other view-points and take on board good ideas wherever they come from. An IN / OUT referendum can never be totally one-sided. It necessitates reaching a ‘balanced’ conclusion which sadly the leading protagonists have made almost impossible via their hyperbolic rhetoric. As always, the loser is the general public.
Whatever the result, the struggle for a just, equitable & sustainable society will continue. There’s a very long way yet to travel. My personal view has ultimately been influenced by the likes of RM, Caroline Lucas, Yanis Varoufarkis et al. Pragmatically I believe the struggle will be more effective from within that without but it’s not an easy, straight-forward call. I guess only History will be the judge. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it!
You won’t change the e.u. vote leave will undoubtedly change it, it will up the true working class left to change the political future of Europe
“totally depressingly, we are spending our time engaged in a complete distraction that is all about wholly unsuccessfully seeking to resolve the fights of the past”
Agreed – it all feels like a manic attempt to create ‘displacement activity’ by creating a huge decoy that takes attention away from the underlying reality. Thinking dialectically, this farce might well reveal even more the irrelevance and incompetence of our political class who daily expose their vacuousness. I think these needs to lead to a messy crisis with the ever present danger of dumbed down right wing reactions. Is this the death rattle of the Westminster bubble (read: global irrelevance of governing elites)? Could be but I’m scared of the knee jerk response of a populace that have been fed a diet of garbage by politicians and media for years.
because of this fear I am thinking of changing my angry OUT vote to a Remain one though I shall need a sick bag and a peg on my nose as I vote. The fear of the flatulence -mouthed Johnson and his dumbed -down ‘aren’t these toffs fun’ popularity is beginning to really worry me.
No chance of changing for me – I am not voting for an unaccountable institution run by technocrats.
The treatment of a democratically elected government by the “crooks and sociopaths” running the EU was the final straw for me.
For me as well , it was seething anger that I want to express in the ballot box and I have expressed my intention do do so on this site as Richard created the space for debate. The EU as it is is a 40 year abject failure of the Left. But, as I said, I’m having doubts now as I’m concerned about the prospect of Johnson and an ascendant UKIP once more. At first I thought: ‘If Johnson gets in his incompetence will be revealed’ and the Left can build from that as people see there will no improvement in the lot of most -but I’m now getting the jitters about that prospect. If I can keep my nerve I will still vote OUT-maybe it will be a case of using the I Ching to make a decision.
Hold your nerve, Johnson won’t be here forever, the e.u will. Vote leave and be brave, the e.u is mega right wing
I have to say Keith Fletcher, the way you put your argument over to Richard was brilliant, loved reading it. Richard can’t believe you even questioned him, he for me was the image of you just on a different subject. The education of our nation politically is paramount to democracy and in no way does it mean all will be interested, just enough to tip those scales towards real change. Again brill Keith.
Haven’t you noticed I am especially grumpy today?
Book writing does that
Ah….I thought that was the reason! I can understand that, I was involved in a rather complex ‘creative’ task today and was a little acerbic to people who phoned me.
When you are concentrating very intensely, niggley comments repeating arguments that say the same thing over and over again must be irritating ( my comments never do that of course!).
🙂
Was strange because I don’t think there is a paper width between you and Keith politically
“I know of no one who really believes that the UK public thought this an issue of real priority before David Cameron made it the focus of political concern”
Fair point, but resignation isn’t the same as not caring. Perhaps people were concerned about the free movement of workers, a democratic deficit, the growth of religious fundamentalism; but assumed nothing could/would be done about it, so focused on what they considered the art of the possible: getting the kids into a decent school, getting a pay rise for the first time in years, a relative fall in house prices so they could get on the ladder.
Cameron may be appalling, but he’s inadvertently made the country engage in a debate it should have had years ago. Certainly I find people passionate about it now, even centrist liberals like me. And the only people I have personally heard say unequivocally that Brexit would definitely be a disaster are business executives and foreign expats working in the City. Everyone else (I meet) is either a committed Brexiteer or at least somewhat torn.
Personally I tended towards Remain until recently. Call it reverse psychology or a natural suspicion of authority, but every time a journalist, politician or economist tells me I’m an idiot for harbouring Leave thoughts, it pushes me in precisely that direction.
If that is the case Matt, then have you considered your actions concerning the vote are clearly being driven by deep seated prejudices within yourself rather than mulling over the facts?
Never mind WHO is telling you something different WHAT are they saying? And have you checked it out? Considered it?
You are basically saying that your vote will be decided on how you personally respond to the person who is talking to you – not what they are saying.
This is an EU referendum Matt- not a popularity contest!!!!
Good grief!
Yes PSR, I have considered my deep seated prejudices as well as my less deep seated prejudices. I’m one of those strange people that does examine their own motivations. And yes, I listen to what is being said and I spend a lot of time mulling over the facts.
When you said “your actions… are clearly being driven”, did you consider that your comment might be oversimplifing my position in order to score points? It was, I’ll clarify.
I have long tended towards Remain, but have recently been moving towards Leave. One of the factors in that move (note, just one of them) is what I perceive as the arrogant, bullying and often deceitful tendencies among various pro-Remain commentators. Shame on me?
It is possible that you, PSR, are immune to emotional or irrational pull and push factors, though I doubt it. If you are then you are a different type of human rarity.
Goodness me – here we go again!! I thought that we had done this one to death?
I think that Richard is spot on in his analysis – and we only have this vote because it was promised as a bribe to the electorate by a very unprincipled leader of the Tory party whose party only ever thrive on creating division amongst those who have less than most in the Tory Party itself and their hinterland.
Poor old Ed Miliband – he didn’t seem to think it was important either and was castigated for his luke-warm response by the media.
And what are we missing as this artificial EU vote gathers pace and passions?
1) The use of austerity to privatise money creation and the ending of Government macro fiscal policy continues almost unchallenged in the mainstream. In the future, all money will be created as interest bearing debt to the banks and the rentier dream will be fulfilled.
2) Fracking has kicked off around the country and a report on the long term effects of it has been held back by this Government.
3) OUR Land Registry is being prepared for a totally unnecessary privatisation – another opportunity for the private sector to make money at your expense. A green light for property based money laundering IMHO.
4) It seems that the sell off of forests and more common land is on the cards.
One thing that really worries someone like me who wishes to stay in and effect change is that this whole sorry episode will further erode our credibility as part of the EU to make change happen.
Since we have been part of the EU, the institution has constantly been used as a whipping post by UK politicians Left and Right.
Our behaviour as a recalcitrant EU ‘refusenik’ – bitching and moaning all of the time in order to look tough to UK voters – may well mean that when we raise real issues about how the EU behaves, we will just not be taken seriously anyway – which is rather tragic.
So for the Remain camp, it may well be a hollow victory if we win because the rest of the EU will just question our commitment anyway if we push forward reforms after we stay in because there may now be more distrust as a result of this vote.
And if we come out?
Firstly it will create a lot of uncertainty as things change whilst there are already huge crises in Europe concerning war-driven immigration and the rise of a right wing driven by discontent.
This is disaster capitalism OK? Pure and simple.
The thing is THE rogue state at the moment is that which is governed by the United States Government backed by its mega-rich. The US created 2008 crash and its previous forays into the middle east has destabilised sovereign Governments the world over and in Europe and the UK this means now that health systems, education systems and the commons are all up for grabs as austerity policies artificially make them look too expensive and makes likely their acquisition by corporate interests. The USA will start to hoover up these assets.
If Cameron falls on his sword, the next Tory Government will welcome the USA with open arms and everything will be up for grabs. We will then hear Boris telling us that leaving was a good thing to do because the flows of inward investments have never been higher and better than the EU – omitting to point out that it will be your children’s pensions, wages, savings and working conditions that will be sucked out at the same time.
I am voting in the referendum only because there are so many hot headed, badly informed and prejudiced people who want to vote to leave. To those I say stop being an instrument of the home grown vested interests at the top of our society that care not one hoot for you and yours.
And Simon – the EU was not really just a left wing idea OK? The Right, the Left the Centre were ALL heartily sick of war by 1946 – OK?
Think very carefully where you put that ‘X’ on 23rd June. Think very carefully indeed.
And if you think – like I do – that we are actually between a rock and a hard place, remember which party put us there at the 2020 election and vote accordingly.
Like James S, I thought this comment was patronising. Maybe it was the line “there are so many hot headed, badly informed and prejudiced people who want to vote to leave”.
For what it is worth I agree with most of your comments about the risks of Brexit. Possibly all of them, but I like to take my time to consider these things.
And you are right that it is a distraction from other important issues. But I don’t think you even try to convince anyone that staying in the EU is a solution to these important issues. Austerity, fracking and the sale of public assets won’t be halted or even slowed by EU membership. So perhaps it is a necessary distraction?
Will Brexit necessarily accelerate these events? Maybe, but (and here’s the crux) we don’t know. What we do know, however, is that there would be greater democratic accountability post-Brexit.
So there’s a risk of economic collapse, a real risk of increasing neo-liberalism, a desire among many pro-Brexiters for a weakening of human rights, and potentially a lessening of our international influence (not sure that’s a bad thing, but there you go). However, in my “hot headed, badly informed and prejudiced” mind, the risks might (stress might) be worth taking. I’m waiting for someone to convince me otherwise, but at this point I have to say it is looking unlikely.
I’m in a similar place to you Matt and viewed the OUT vote as a ‘dialectical’ appraoch meaning: even if things did get somewhat worse (and it could only be ‘somewhat’ as the neo-lib agenda has been pushed close to its limit as we see in France) then that might finally accelerate change as the vacuity of the Right is seen for what it is.
Recently I’ve been feeling unsure of this appraoch and fear the public have been dumbed down so much in recent years that they might accept an increased hegemony of the Right with docility.
What to do: Abstain? There is still a Left OUT argument but it is not being heard.
I wasn’t supposed to come back until next Wednesday so Nick James could get a word in but Matt and others deserve an answer.
Matt – you voluntarily shared with us some of your reasoning on how you intend to vote. I felt that your decision mechanism was faulty so I commented on it. What did you expect when you made that comment? If that makes you uncomfortable, then I’m sorry but then why not talk about something else surely?
‘Point scoring’ – no, not me. The political class does this in the media 24/7 and I’m not a politician (and I do not need your vote hence the honesty). Neither am I here to be Eristical either – that is to say I’m not here just to argue until others give up for the sake of it and not adding anything to the debate.
‘Hot headed’ etc., – yes I hear a lot of anger in the BREXIT camp but the anger seems always pointed at the nearest co-sufferer of bad policies and other innocents (such as immigrants). All this is, is ordinary people fighting with each other rather than directing their criticism upwards to those who create these issues in the first place. There is also anger in the Remain camp – anger at listening to so many people who are being led by the nose because the vote is enabling them to express their frustrations in many cases without exploring these more deeply. And that makes such people vulnerable to be being used.
The ability of vested interests to manipulate us has now been turbo-charged by social media and I feel that a lot of people are being misled and stirred up. It’s simple – don’t fall for it. Stand back. To Dave and Boris – this is just a game. They’re rich for goodness sake – perfectly armed and ready to take advantage of either result. Are you?
‘Patronising’ – this relates to people who sound superior apparently. As I said, I do not feel superior – Richard has deleted comments from me when I have got hot under the collar so I am human like the rest of you.
After nearly 20 years in public service, I’ve seen this word used by people (politicians and members of the public usually) who feel threatened by those who are better informed than they are and whom are just trying to share what they have found or observed with others. It’s a way of inhibiting information, debate and knowledge acquisition. It’s a way of cutting the diligent and the enquiring down to size. It is actually more of a dismissive weapon Matt and James S than just disagreeing with someone in my view.
And Matt – for goodness sake – don’t look for other people to convince you – convince YOURSELF. For it is you who has to vote. Vote consciously.
Simon – I’m not sure I get your description of dialectics but dialectics are present in this issue – everything is accompanied by its opposite and that is what we are all going to be voting for on a personal basis – what opposites we can live with and what we can live without. But I entreat you all find out what they actually are and think bigger and beyond yourselves and this island.
And finally Simon you say this:
‘Recently I’ve been feeling unsure of this approach and fear the public have been dumbed down so much in recent years that they might accept an increased hegemony of the Right with docility.’
We all must consider whether we too are part of the ‘dumbed down public’ in this referendum.
PSR
Thanks
Now take that break – just as I should
As a simple soul I think the referendum is a diversion. Whilst we are all arguing about it this government is slipping through and selling off more and more of our assets (Land Registry privitisation with 4 contenders lining up to buy, all with off shore banking). Fracking is being forced through in areas where 93% of the public are against it. CETA has already been passed by the EU which should make one think that regardless of “all in it together”in the EU, TTIP will also go that way without us having any say. Why isn’t all this plastered over the news instead of the ridiculous school boy tatics from both sorry camps. I want something to be done to stop the rise of house prices as I can’t see how that is good for our overall econony just the chosen few. We should all be looking at how we have allowed a government to break the rules of our voting system and get into power by illegal means. These constituencies should be voided, the MPs removed and the elections re-run. Richard, you know that Osbourne has caused untold damage & deaths by his policies. Shouldn’t we all be trying to remove them before there is nothing left in the UK to save?
It so happens that thus referendum may deliver just what you want
Patronising psr and wrong
Such comments on other commentators are not acceptable here
Please debate or be silent
That’s a bit harsh, my first ever comment on here regarding married tax allowance, where said that offering a relief to married couples was a good thing, your reply was bollocks.
Then it probably was
And I reserve that right
I do not allow it from one commentator to another
James s you must remember that Richard is a benevolent dictator 😉
As he is quite rightly entitled to be with regards to his blog!
We are all (or mostly) grumpy old men (and women) after all…
James, I couldn’t disagree more. PSRs’ piece seemed spot on to me.
Strange world if one cannot write patronising without causing offence. Psr answered well, I just thought he was too dismissive over others with opposing views that are as enlightened as him
James S:
I’m sorry if you feel patronised but that is not my intent. My intent is to do what others do here and engage with the view expressed in a blog. I don’t feel superior to others here but I do obviously feel differently and that is what I was expressing.
I feel that my contribution here and on previous posts that I have thought the EU vote through quite a lot in an effort to consciously take part and do the right thing. If anyone wants to differ with me – go ahead – I’m all ears. There be issues I have not considered yet.
My apparent dismissal of other’s arguments is only based on the view that a modern citizen must rely on many different sources of information in order to find out for themselves in circumstances like this and not just be led by the nose by just dominant opposing mainstream views. I do not want to feel as though I am being manipulated. I am hearing too much regurgitated nonsense from both sides – even here. Sorry – but I have to say it.
However, understand that underpinning my need to nail all the issues is my deeply held conviction – along with others – that this vote is totally unnecessary and very damaging and for me it is down to identifying what set of consequences one can live with afterwards. And those consequences for me are those that will result with us staying in the EU.
There is an argument that many of those voting for Brexit are doing so as a broader protest and expression of anger against the so-called political (and other) ‘elites’ and ‘establishment’, the EU being identified as one of those elites/establishments. Its ironic that the likes of Johnson and Farage could not be more representative of elites/establishment if they tried…
What the referendum campaign has demonstrated in spades is the very poor quality of politicians and leaders from either side of the debate, perhaps providing full justification for that anger. Very few have shown the kind of integrity and vision of the kind that people might respect and really be influenced by. Populism and naked self interest has been the norm with most of the media just acting as amplifiers.
Although Im a committed but critical Remainer, I can have some sympathy with that anger – I just happen to think that it is misdirected. Its a crudely obvious example of politicians seeking scapegoats in the form of ‘others, the ‘others’ in this case being migrants and the EU, and avoiding more deep seated, closer to home root causes.
To try and end on a positive note, it emphasises how desperately we need to develop a very different, forward looking, positive political and economic vision with political leaders to promote it who are going to engage with and be trusted by the broad mass of the population. Its possible, as much of the debate in these blogs illustrates
For me a vote leave is a vote for change us leavers are well aware Boris and the lot are the establishment on another branch, I’m wanting to change the trunk not just a few twigs and leave is the way
But chopping the tree down altogether is rather different to want to see substantial reshaping…
I look at the leavers and who their main supporters are – overwhelmingly from the far right, with I acknowledge a very few exceptions.
I look at the arguments about regulation – and see clear agendas for much poorer working conditions, lower product standards, cut backs to environmental measures (not to mention the outright climate change denial gang). We are in the aftermath of an economic crisis caused primarily by deregulation of the financial sector in particular, where the EC has seen its efforts resisted by a pro-finance British government
I listen to the serious, international businesses, some of whom I know and have worked with and who are unequivocally in favour and indeed are pro-regulation because of the level playing field it gives them. They don’t see dodgy products/services and poorer working conditions as prerequisites for business success
I listen to the debate about democratic accountability, and see a group of people who are mostly in favour of even more control of government by the less desirable ends of the corporate spectrum
And then in nearly every debate, I hear arguments slide back to blaming our problems on the ‘others’. Be they migrants or the EC – ‘its the foreigners fault’. And thats a very dark place and the haunt of populist demagogues over the ages
So I’ll be throwing my lot in with those who want to see Europe tackling its faults and help with that process, whilst retaining all that has made it the most civilised place on the planet to live and work – which of course is why everyone wants to come here…
Robin
I echo a great deal of that
Richard
Fair enough but as individuals we have absorbed the world in differently.my family is paramount in my decision, if my son happened not to be academic but is willing to work I don’t want him to have to compete against unskilled Labour, driving down wages, my parents did not fight for us to throw there gains in the bin, Boris will have him competing against China and Indian workers and the remain the poor ofEurope. Vote leave and it is hope, will stir the working class left and usher in a fairer capitalism, that works.
Capitalism is the ownership of land and capital by those who don’t use them. That’s its fundamental flaw. Socialism – ownership of land and capital by those who do use them – has never been properly tried, but it must surely be a fairer and more efficient way for an economy to function.
“Socialism — ownership of land and capital by those who do use them — has never been properly tried, but it must surely be a fairer and more efficient way for an economy to function.”
Carol you’re right in principle but actually there have been, and still are, many examples of where communities based on socialist principles have developed and operated very successfully. I have lived within one and studied many.
However, they are mostly small scale, sporadic and based on very specific/niche circumstances. What has not happened is any nation state operating along such principles (despite the best intentions of the very early communist socialists).
Changing the ownership model of a nation state is not easy without either violent overthrow of its rulers or a very long burning decay of its financial foundations. Maintaining a socialist nation state in a “crapitalist” dominated world is nigh on impossible unless there is a total commitment to it and no violent force imposed to destroy it.
And so the best focus on my view, is to develop a much broader network of worker/community owned surplus generating organisations at grass roots level (call them for-profit social enterprises if you like), where the ownership and distribution of the assets and surpluses is always controlled by those most affected by them. Bottom up socialism is the buzz-phrase, because by doing it that way at some point in the future the dots may all join up to form a whole nation state.
You will not and cannot overcome the power of existing financial capitalism from above in my view as it is too ingrained in everything we need to exist today. However, you can chip away at its foundations from below while building the alternative community based enterprises that will replace it when it eventually implodes in on itself (which it will do one day as the financial debt driven growth model is in my view unsustainable and most debt will eventually have to be written off causing that implosion).
And so I do have hope that real change is inevitable, but it needs those who understand capitalism and finance (but are not slaves to it) to work with those who desperately need and desire a better world to live in.
One thing is certain and that is that the EU debate has stirred up feelings unlike even general elections. That’s substantially because this is looks like a once and for all event (although I agree with commentators who say that a vote for Brexit could be followed in a few years time by an application to rejoin) but in the main it has exposed ideological positions on both right and left. The Right’s instincts are nationalism (I don’t buy the rubbish about sovereignty-it wants a very much watered down version of democracy-one which can’t change the status quo) and a demand for less inhibitors to its march to a market-based Utopia. The Left’s reservations are ironically the belief that the EU is dominated by free-maket, pro-capital policies. What I have to say is being missed is how successful the mostly social-democratic governments and institutions of Europe have been in creating and distributing wealth until the last few years contrary I would say to expressed views of extreme opinion. Apparently regardless of alleged stultifying bureaucracy or free-market bias in the main these countries have delivered and if you want proof just go to European towns and cities and talk to their citizens, look at their schools, their transport systems and infrastructure, their homes and ultimately their well-being and then tell me that they’ve got it all wrong. I for one am sick and tired of being told how special the UK is and how we would be much better running our own show. We rank well down on per-capita income, on investment and social provision and ultimately on happiness. I’m for Remain and if anything makes me waver the thought of total self-government by the kind of self-serving elites that we are cursed with strengthens my resolve.
Why do people think that those of us who want out want to alienate ourselves from Europe, no, some of us believe it’s the best way to bring about change, change for the good, why on earth believe a right wing government will wreak havoc with out nation, no British citizens won’t allow it. The comments above about sorry Britain have come about while we’re in the EU.
I’d wholly agree that whilst some of the more recent joiners are rather different (Hungary and Poland for example), what I think of as the ‘core’ European countries are far more social democratic (for lack of a better term) than the UK. The UK has always leaned towards the US and its more free market, neo-liberal tendencies, and indeed many European countries sometimes see the UK as a threat in wanting to introduce too much of that ideology.
So I too struggle with the Left’s arguments against Europe as being too free market and pro-capital. One only has to look at what is happening in France right now. I suspect its very much the old Left who have not really shed their core anti-capitalist views and still live in hope of a Marxist/Communist Nirvana…
Polarising the argument is no good. The issue is grey, very few would advocate a Marxist alternative to neoliberalism, I’m very much in tune with Richard on his vision of the future, taking the best of capitalism and the best of a government that regulates and controls fairly.
Robin I am confused by your contradictory statements in your posts above. In one you appear to be in support of workers rights and regulations then you say “One only has to look at what is happening in France right now.”
What is happening in France right now is workers standing up to protect their hard earned and fought for workers rights, against a state that is determined to play hardball and change the long-term agreed rules of the game.
I suggest you are sitting on both sides of the fence and you need to be clear where you sit, because I believe we are entering a period of polarisation where the middle ground is no longer a logical place to be on many important issues like this.
Perhaps I misunderstood but the contradiction stood out to me?
Responding to Keith’s post – having a French brother and extended family there, France is probably the country I know best (and like very much) outside the UK. I’m seeing what is happening in France just as you do, as an example of people standing up for their rights, as the French do every so often when they feel they are threatened. My sense is that France (a sweeping generalisation I know) is more small ‘s’ socialist and communitarian than the UK, where we tend perhaps to be more individualist in comparison.
However in Nimes where my brother lives, they had the first elected communist mayor in France and yet now provide the Front National with one of their strongest bases. Which maybe tells us something of the appeal of both ends of the spectrum to those who feel both threatened and powerless. Nimes has both high unemployment and a high immigrant population which may be telling
And to James’ point:
Having worked and studied in the development sector as well as in business, Ive seen some of the unreconstructed Marxists at first hand. Also when one meets those same Socialist Workers at demos, with much the same slogans as they had when they were there in the late 60s! Thats not to say that Marx does not have some very perceptive observations on the potential failings of capitalism. Its a pity that so many commentators seem to have read neither Marx nor Smith, who also spotted capitalisms weaknesses.
I also get frustrated when those on the neo-liberal right dismiss all criticisms of capitalism as some how arguing the case for unfettered Marxism. And similarly those on the further left who do not distinguish between the kind of capitalism one sees in say Scandinavia, and the super-charged capitalism of the neo-liberals.
I’m with you and Richard on this, in looking for the best of both, and I believe that its is possible with a version of capitalism that is regulated to ensure it acts in the interests of the many rather than the very few. Its unfortunate that we we have to describe it as ‘shades of grey’, for all sorts of reasons. Ignoring the obvious example, all the more exciting colours have been stolen by someone else – Red, Blue, Yellow, Green, Purple….
Thanks Robin, that was a very informative account of your own perspective on the French situation. I agree with your analysis of Nimes, people respond most strongly to things affecting them personally in their own lives.
If personally suffering or surrounded by failing social, economic, political or environmental policies they will react with fear, anger and ultimately violence.
As to its causes, I am no expert on France but it strikes me how often in the UK they are still represented as that lazy, idle, backward nation – when perhaps we should question our own economic model much more closely and ask why do we work increasingly long hours for little or no more pay, accept zero hours contracts as normal employment terms or consider it acceptable for our government to tear apart the social contract that has underpinned our own welfare state since the 1950’s.
All in the name of productivity, competitiveness, growth – for who’s benefit though? Certainly not those most affected by the proposed changes!
Thanks Phil for your comment. You are the first person for about 2 weeks who has made me think again about Remain. I was on the fence but was sent a very good film (I make films so I can appreciate a well made one) that made some really good points for Brexit. Not your rubbish immigration ones and it was led by journalist not politicians. I am a socilaist and don’t fit into the category of how all Brexit people are painted but I am considering that route now. I don’t like the fact that there are faceless people who were not elected or voted to govern, making rules for the EU. No democracy.
However, I agree with you about other European Cities and that the UK at the moment only really works for the chosen few. If you really believe that staying in will have an impact to close the poverty gap in this country, then I am all ears.
Love your comment “total self-government by the kind of self-serving elites that we are cursed with ” and right with you on that.
Just a quickie!
Phil – lots of great points here that I totally agree with and had not considered previously and having spent time in Europe as late as last summer they certainly ring true for me.
Thank you.
There’s are themes in some of these comments that:
– the referendum is unnecessary & is a construct of the Tory party
– we know best & people should not be given the opportunity to vote.
I’d just like to point out that the referendum was in the manifesto of the elected government (despite the FPTP isn’t valid cries, that is the system we have)and if the opinion polls are to be believed around 50% of people who express a view to the pollsters are in favour of Brexit. Surely that voice should be heard.
I’m currently undecided, however Project Fear is not helping the Remain case in my decision making, neither some of the wilder claims of Brexit. Some of the comments by Juncker are pushing me to Brexit as this unelected elite he leads scare me more than going alone.
Interestingly, I listened to a radio programme with 10 different nationalities from within the EU and they were split as to Brexit 50/50. Those in favour of Brexit hoped their countries would follow.
Newspapers and radio are not options for me.
They are at the mercy of owners and presenters opinions, needs and prejudices.
There is a wealth of knowledge available online, and much personal opinion with less obvious leanings..
The mechanics of leaving are quite rigid, and once invoked and the route to leave started, reverse is not an option.
This is how I see things.
There are two juggernauts going down the same road eventually they will arrive at the same destination. One is driven by the EU the other by Boris and his right wing cronies. One is ten times the size of the other the EU, and I believe cannot be steered off course, the other driven by Boris can more easily be steered of course and as it does
so smashes into the path of the EU juggernaut. What the outcome of this collision will be I cannot be certain but new roads will be created some much worse but others much better, I take the chance we will travel along the better road with a new inclusive juggernaut.
Unless the EU juggernaut is driven by a paranoid highly insular driver…or the UK juggernaut is driven by a highly sociopathic egomaniac…
But wait……they are…
Interesting article that suggests it may not just be “battle bus” expenses that were incorrectly allocated during the 2015 election but also “battle call centre” expenses too.
It seems UK politics is now less about the issues and more about the strategy, tactics and potential dirty tricks of electioneering. FPTP and marginal seats make such things possible, as a few million pounds concentrated in the right places can swing the results drastically one way or another.
I wonder how many of these tactics and their expenses are being used in the EU referendum campaigning, and whether they have accounted correctly for them this time?
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/31/whistleblower-exposes-major-new-allegation-tory-election-fraud-scandal-exclusive/
Meanwhile, in the outside world that our egotistically-fragile politicians fail to inhabit…
Russia has quietly rearmed itself into a 21st century nuclear-arms enabled nation…
The U.K. has decided to station tanks and heavy weapons on the borders of Russian ally states..
British students are increasingly utilising the economic elements of their bodies to fund education..
Locally, a hospitals MSK contract with another hospital has failed due to lack of available funds, and economically-mobile staff..
The in-out-shake-it-all-about referendum, which will solve nothing since we still have to trade with the EU (and no, we can not have individual trading agreements with separate member states) is still on its U.K. farewell tour…..it won’t solve the “migration” problem, since we cannot solve the illegal version, and the legal version will just change state if we vote to leave (which could take up to, or even longer, than ten years.
The TUC’s latest report which I’d take to be a left of centre perspective. Critical of the EU and highlights the challenges but clearly in favour of Remain
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/BetteroffIN2.pdf