This is a global issue with the leftists. They so invested in defining, and in some cases creating, shades of leftists that they are rarely a viable option and tend to drive away potential voters. This fragmentation becomes disastrous in FPTP.
The lack of electoral alliances in perhaps unique to UK politics. Electoral alliances are a must for FPTP countries like India and Bangladesh (when we do have elections).
Thanks, I donât know where that polling is from but that would accord with my sense of it as well. From my own perspective, and I have said this so many times, there were several issues that each had equal status for me.
The problem is that all of these ideas are fairly nebulous when summarised in a single paragraph. Some by necessity because they are more ideological.
As well as the three reasons cited (and 1 and 3 are effectively two sides of the same coin) I would include the greater ability to deliver social justice to the UK population. As part of point 2 I would include the ability to have an equitable (non-discriminatory) immigration policy, which is designed primarily around skills rather than nationality. I am also concerned about protecting national identity, I like the fact that countries are distinguishable in how they do things. Not only does it make the world a more interesting place but it can also be a comfort. This connects with the feeling of individuals that they have a semblance of control over their lives. The more people are disenfranchised the greater the potential for discontentment. In my opinion âmore Europe (EU)â has directly led to a rise in nationalism and this can be seen across numerous countries within the EU. Itâs dangerous.
One of the issues with immigration, for example, is that under the original concept this was about freedom of movement for workers, not citizens. This meant that workers were able to freely move to countries within the EC providing they had a job to go to. This has been significantly expanded over time and, most notably, by decisions made by the ECJ (ie not even unelected politicians but worseâŚunelected lawyers 
). This now extends to citizens and whilst there are theoretical rules about being able to deport those who are not working or actively looking for work they are unenforceable. This is potentially damaging for both the country people migrate to but also the country they leave behind. It also means that EU member states have to disproportionally restrict the migration of those from outside the (overwhelmingly caucasian) EU. Itâs why I have no problem with describing the EUâs immigration policy as being indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of nationality. I would prefer the UK to be able to operate an immigration policy that treats all nationalities equally.
I think another of the main issues is the fact that the referendum in 2016 was the first time this country had been asked whether it was happy with the UKâs continued membership of the club in over 40 years. Thatâs just absurd. Had the country been asked about Maastricht, or Lisbon then maybe voters wouldnât have felt so disenfranchised, maybe they wouldnât be concerned that if they didnât have a say now (ie, get out) it could be another 40 plus years of further EU expansion without consultation. For those who voted to remain (not to join, remember) in the 1975 Referendum I know many felt that their vote had been betrayed (my Dad among them) in that they did not vote for what has become the EU. They voted to remain a member of the EEC. They didnât get a vote for the Maastricht Treaty (when the EEC became the EC, effectively the start of the EU) and they didnât get a vote for the Lisbon Treaty (when the EC ceased to exist and was succeeded by the EU). With a vote roughly every 10 to 15 years perhaps the UK doesnât vote to leave the EU in 2016? Perhaps ensuring that Member States have to check in with their citizens on a periodic basis also acts to constrain the EU policy makers so that things move in a direction that enjoys a certain amount of buy-in from the citizens it purports to represent. Citizens then feel less disenfranchised, more in control, more in it togetherâŚpouring water on the flames of nationalism.
Another aspect is that the EU is too cumbersome. It has become too big and moves only as fast as its slowest member. Thatâs just the consequence of collective decision making - in the end, with one or two exceptions, no direction taken by the EU aligns with what an individual country would choose for itself. Of course there has to be compromise when countries decide to work as one bloc but for me the areas which the EU wants harmonisation go beyond the original market-based design. The one we originally signed up for.
There are global threats and opportunities that require a flexible and expedient response that the EU has shown itself largely incapable of achieving. It has become too big or its jurisdiction too broad. As a lawyer this is particularly apposite. Economists and fiscal policy makers might similarly feel the EUâs attempt for one-size fits all policies are sub-optimum.
There is also a frustration that the in-built inequities of the EU remain, even after so long. The Common Agricultural Policy is just a disaster. In the words of remain-voting George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian in 2017, it
"spends âŹ50bn (ÂŁ44bn) a year on achieving none of its objectives. It is among the most powerful drivers of environmental destruction in the northern hemisphere. Because payments are made only for land thatâs in âagricultural conditionâ, the system creates a perverse incentive to clear wildlife habitats, even in places unsuitable for farming, to produce the empty ground that qualifies for public money. These payments have led to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of magnificent wild places across Europe.
It is also arguably the most regressive transfer of public money in the modern world"
The CAP is the EUâs single biggest budget item accounting for nearly 40% of all EU spending. It creates distorted markets, hinders trade deals, damages the environment, encourages inefficiency, increases costs to consumers, and rewards rich land-owners simply for owning land.
Successive UK governments over the last 30+ years have tried to reform the CAP but their attempts have been constantly resisted/blocked, most notably by France as the blocâs single biggest recipient of the EUâs largesse. Indeed France has been, by a distance, the single biggest recipient of EU subsidy under CAP throughout its existence.
Take this summary from the last Labour government in 2005,
The Treasuryâs 2005 analysis, which concluded that CAP âimposes substantial costs on consumers and taxpayers but is inefficient in delivering support to farmers and promoting an attractive rural environment. Indeed, much of the CAP still has a negative impact on the environment.â
Another frustration is the sense that EU member states just ignore the rules they donât like with very little sanction. On TIA I provided the link to the list of breaches and sanctions by EU member state that the EU used to publish, itâs now a lot harder to find, for some reason. Consistently the UK was one of the better performing members when it came to adhering to the rules. Consistently, France, Germany, Italy (and others) ranked among the worst.
I agree, I donât think anyone has claimed that all 17m people who voted for Brexit knew what they were voting for, not seriously. Just like it would be entirely wrong to say that all 16m who voted to remain in the EU had any clue what the EU was/is/will be. There was a huge lack of understanding but equally the issues are so wide-ranging that nobody can be fully across all of the details. Some of the assertions Iâve seen made by remain-supporting forum members have been as embarrassing as the bullshit Iâve seen from brexit-supporting forum members.
From my own point of view there has been considerable frustration at the lack of losers consent. After the Referendum the country ought to have been pulling together to make the best of leaving the EU, instead too many tried to usurp the process and thwart the implementation of the result. Nowhere was that demonstrated more accurately than hundreds of remain-supporting politicians voting against Mayâs brexit deal despite that making a no deal brexit more likely (why the ERG voted against it). That was a gross example of cutting off your nose to spite your face and an exercise in self-harm. It was a scandalous decision and Iâm not at all surprised that so many of the MPs who voted against Mayâs deal found themselves without a seat after last yearâs election.
No, Iâm not. Not yet anyway. But then I never expected to get the Brexit I wanted straight away. Had EFTA/EEA been on the table from the beginning then maybe I would have got the starting point to where Iâd like to end up sooner but it wasnât so itâs going to take even longer to get to that point. I also never expected the process to be achieved within 5 years. Iâve always talked about timelines at least double that. For me leaving the EU was always about the long-term. A concern about the EUâs direction of travel as much as a belief that the UK could thrive outside of the EU in the long-term and provide greater social justice and mobility to its citizens.
Thatâs part of the problem - there really werenât other viable options. Itâs fairly well known that I didnât want Johnson to be leader of the Conservatives. He did, however, appeal to millions of voters in a way that Corbyn would never do. Other than Corbyn, who else was there?
Nigel Farage (Brexit Party 2%), among others, must be quite surprised to know that you consider him to be on the left. The Conservatives and DUP totalled 44.4% of the vote but they are not the only parties to be centre>centre-right and, indeed, there are sizeable factions within parties (and voters) on the left that support Brexit so it cannot simply be boiled down to left and right. Understandably too - just look at the reasons why the likes of Frank Field support Brexit and why Corbyn is also known to be sympathetic.
Thanks for the reply. I think you are unique in that regard. Iâm not sure many others would share your thoughts to be honest.
Do you still think the UK can thrive? Iâm not so sure to be honest. Anything we set up now will not be as good as what we had e.g. Japan trade deal. How can you turn that around? Honest questions.
These were my primary concerns behind my vote.
Interesting point and I agree there is certainly a rise in nationalism but is it really a result of the EU or something else? My view its something else, certainly in the UK, but the EU was blamed for it.
Also worth noting that Farage pulled Brexit Party candidates from the election. Would wouldnât see that in enough numbers from Liberals, Labour, And all other parties.
The only other example I can think of is Plaid Cymru pulling their candidate from a Local election in Wales to effectively allow the Liberals the seat
A new poster has appeared on a different LFC forum. He says his location is Epsom and says he used to be on TIA.
Here are his thoughts on TIA.
This is Anfield - seemingly a friendlier place but very strictly moderated with no personal abuse or long standing rows. A small number of posters who post hourly. One of the mods (Mascot88) will not tolerate political dissent so to contribute to the political thread you must be a card carrying Corbynista who thinks the virus is deliberate and Boris is a mass murderer. Any other views lead to a ban eventually.
He wonât last long there either.
Funny take. I canât recall anyone claiming the virus being deliberate who wasnt bannedâŚcertainly wasnt a view amongst those on the left as far as i recall, and I would think most liverpool fan forums would be much less supportive of Boris than he was. Is he still proclaiming Boris to be much misunderstood and a libertarian?
Would be funny if he came onto this forum not realising where we had moved from lolz
Have you spread your wings?
You could get famous with an endorsement like that. Can you forge a career as a mod?
What I also found quite amusing. It wasnât you that banned him from memory.
His Porch will live long in the memory
Did he ever have that reputation? Must have missed that. Bumbling public school fool is my opinion of him. Quick witted???
Christ AlmightyâŚhe is still banging on about Corbyn?
I wonder how many wagers he has made with his new matesâŚ
Will this provoke two years of paralysis in the party, media scrutiny on a daily basis, endless attacks on the leadership, and calls from all quarters that the party is unelectable?
Will it fuck.
And the worst thing is that number is twice as many as the card-carrying Conservatives who can remember what day it is.
Of course not. What a fucking mess the UK has become. In some ways itâs a shame the US is in a worse mess and stealing our thunder.
All together now: USA! USA! Weâre number one! Weâre number one!
The problem, at least from the perspective of the Labour party, is that this view of Islam / Muslims, is shared by many erstwhile Labour voters in what used to be âRed Wallâ constituencies.
Muslims make up what, 10% of the voters??? They are probably relevant in only about 5% of the seats. Disposable.
And anti-semitism is a mindset more commonly found in those on the political right than the left.
I think the problem is the media.
Given legal action⌠This seemed the right gif
I have to say, the EU threatening legal action against the UK over this is precisely the sort of thing that Eurosceptics love. I donât think this will play particularly well in individual EU member states either, particularly Germany because it goes directly towards the concept of sovereignty.