-
Echo chamber effect, as you say.
This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?
To add, I don't think we have Labour and Conservative politicians any more - I think we have Leave and Remain MP's, scattered through both parties in a relatively stochastic manner.
Ignoring the defining issue of this, and likely the next, generation isn't going to make it go away (sadly).
Dammit-
This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?
Of course the concerns are shared by many. The question is what people will actually vote for when push comes to shove. I'm sure that would be an interesting polling question to ask, but I'm not sure polls would be such a good guide given their poor record recently.
I don't think we have Labour and Conservative politicians any more - I think we have Leave and Remain MP's, scattered through both parties in a relatively stochastic manner.
Obviously no. We have plenty of politicians who subscribe to the Labour manifesto at the last election, or indeed their latest proposals, and who aren't blinded by the great 'Brexit' deception. We have plenty of people who subscribe to traditional Tory policies, too. There are people on both sides who think that 'Brexit' would facilitate either of those, yes. However, it's not the case that we don't have 'Labour' and 'Conservative' politicians any more. The Third Way is currently, well, over.
Ignoring the defining issue of this, and likely the next, generation isn't going to make it go away (sadly).
Once again, May tried this at the last election, and it was a disaster for her. Don't perpetuate that nonsense. Politics is much, much broader than this and will continue to be. 'Brexit' would be a smokescreen.
Were there to be another general election, Labour would again not allow the Tories to use 'Brexit' as a divide-and-rule issue and the election would be decided on the substance of politics. That is, unless Labour conference makes a stupid decision to back a second referendum to potentially cancel 'Brexit'. That would really damage them.
-
This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?
It's not quite the same but when you look at more recent polls on whether people think Brexit was wrong the gap between yes and no isn't massive.
From the most recent YouGov polls (2 weeks ago) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/09/12/how-public-feel-about-brexit-options/
The other suggested ways of getting through the next few years were all less popular. By 43% to 34% people would be unhappy if Parliament rejected the deal and insisted on a referendum about whether to go ahead. This idea gets less support than our regular tracker on whether people think there should be a referendum, suggesting that the process by which one was triggered would make a difference.
The idea of delaying Brexit to allow for a better deal also scored badly. By 34% to 28% people are unhappy with the idea of extending the post-Brexit transition period to five years. Furthermore are unhappy with delaying the departure date itself to allow time for more negotiations (36% to 31%).
This was interesting as an indicator of how little priority it has for many people:
The specifics of the Chequers agreement are not something that has cut through to the public. Over two-thirds (69%) say they have either not been following the story or are unaware of it.
Oliver Schick
aggi
Echo chamber effect, as you say. The question to ask is whether those people would really not vote Labour if faced with the choice between a seemingly fairly benign Labour 'Brexit' (not that I'm trying to greenwash 'Brexit', I think it would be stupid for Labour to plough ahead with it, too) or the chance of some political change around the issue (see above), or a Tory 'Brexit' that clearly is aiming at stripping back rights, environmental protection, etc.
In a proportional voting system, voting for a smaller party under those circumstances makes sense; in a first-past-the-post system (unless, as I said, you're in a constituency where a smaller party has a chance of winning a seat, e.g. Lib Dems or Brighton) it makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, of course Brexit would be a big issue if it happened under some kind of catastrophic deal/'no deal' arrangement. I wasn't talking about that, but about its significance as an election issue. Labour brilliantly outflanked May the last time when they talked about completely different things instead. As an electoral issue it's not nearly as important or immediate to most people as all the other things that are wrong. Most people can't predict how 'the economy' will go--on past form, most economists can't, either. Some powerful stock or currency gamblers perhaps can to some extent, but partly because they'll be influencing the outcome by where they put their money. People care about things they understand--public services (see the 'Brexit' NHS bollocks), how politics makes them feel, etc., not dire abstract warnings from 'Project Fear' (still ongoing). Obviously, the challenge for Labour is to actually get their vote out, but the strategy of moving the focus away from a problem the Tory party mainly has still seems right to me. And Labour simply are right not to disregard the referendum result. So far, they've made a very good fist of what for them is a very difficult situation.
Hammond will never be Tory leader. He has negative charisma. Even May is better (until she commits those unspeakable blunders like those that characterised her election campaign, fields of wheat and so on).