Unofficial Hexus Brexit Straw Poll - In, Out, Undecided?

[peterb]

Yes you did - you said specifically that Cobyn winning the election would be the worst possible outcome.

That means your position by extension Farage or Walker by extension winning would be not as bad.

That means your rather they win the election than he does.

It also means you would rather an ultra right wing set of parties win the election than a newly left wing Labour.

Edit!!

If that is not the case then you will have no problem saying both Corbyn or Farage winning the election would be the worst outcomes.

Under the current election system, Farage has almost no chance of becoming PM, Slough UKIP achieved a sizeable proportion of the popular vote. Corbyn has some chance. Neither would be my choice for PM, but as we live in a democracy, I'd have to live with it. Saying which would be worse is difficult because UKIP as a single issue party again doesn't have a credible set of policies or the wherewithal to put them into place.

Out of the current electable parties, my opinion is that Corbyn would be my least favourite, and probably the worse for the overall economy as left wing economies tend to perform less well that right wing ones.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Under the current election system, Farage has almost no chance of becoming PM, Slough UKIP achieved a sizeable proportion of the popular vote. Corbyn has some chance. Neither would be my choice for PM, but as we live in a democracy, I'd have to live with it. Saying which would be worse is difficult because UKIP as a single issue party again doesn't have a credible set of policies or the wherewithal to put them into place.

Out of the current electable parties, my opinion is that Corbyn would be my least favourite, and probably the worse for the overall economy as left wing economies tend to perform less well that right wing ones.

Thanks for the clarification!

[SeriousSam]

The problem for the Labour party is that although Corbyn is somewhat "middle left" he doesn't have much truck with anything more than a smidgen to his right. Furthermore he couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag and exerts little overall control. Consequently his "support" is skewed way off into the far extremes of the left, where politics comes down to a "hierarchy of victimhood". This is also where the most "vocal" elements reside, which reinforces the image that the Labour party is basically one step away from being a "bunch of communists". So when the political average of the UK population has shifted from slightly left to slightly right of centre it basically, under normal circumstances, makes them both unelectable and ineffective as an opposition. This is the last thing that you want as it limits the cheques and balances on the government, which at the moment is pretty much limited to the Lords.

Of course having somewhat extreme views is not in and of itself a problem. It only becomes one when they are coupled with a will-full blindness to any other position being even remotely correct. Previously this was the province of political fringe elements who had little impact. However, with the contraction of meaningful politics to either side of the centre. Opposing parties / groups have resorted to ever increasing hyperbole to differentiate themselves. Thus everything comes down to simplistic black and white arguments where each side uses "emotional triggers" to sway the public. In such an environment weird things start to happen*. If you then combine that with a indecisive referendum vote either way... things don't look very healthy.

* Trump / Sanders being classic examples

[opel80uk]

The problem for the Labour party is that although Corbyn is somewhat "middle left" he doesn't have much truck with anything more than a smidgen to his right. Furthermore he couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag and exerts little overall control. Consequently his "support" is skewed way off into the far extremes of the left, where politics comes down to a "hierarchy of victimhood". This is also where the most "vocal" elements reside, which reinforces the image that the Labour party is basically one step away from being a "bunch of communists". So when the political average of the UK population has shifted from slightly left to slightly right of centre it basically, under normal circumstances, makes them both unelectable and ineffective as an opposition. This is the last thing that you want as it limits the cheques and balances on the government, which at the moment is pretty much limited to the Lords.

Of course having somewhat extreme views is not in and of itself a problem. It only becomes one when they are coupled with a will-full blindness to any other position being even remotely correct. Previously this was the province of political fringe elements who had little impact. However, with the contraction of meaningful politics to either side of the centre. Opposing parties / groups have resorted to ever increasing hyperbole to differentiate themselves. Thus everything comes down to simplistic black and white arguments where each side uses "emotional triggers" to sway the public. In such an environment weird things start to happen*. If you then combine that with a indecisive referendum vote either way... things don't look very healthy.

* Trump / Sanders being classic examples

That's not a bad analysis, except the one, glaring, omission of why the left tends to fair badly. And that is because of lobbying. Rich, powerful corporations effectively pay for influence within Governments to benefit their interests, and there are now so many conflicts of interests going on that we no longer see them as conflicts of interests – we see them as the accepted norm. And the left, with their high taxation policy is never, ever going to be a friend of those corporations, so the media – owned by rich, powerful corporations do their own lobbying. Any party to the left will always have to face an incredibly hostile media, not because as Peter suggests that left economies tend to fare worse (does the Nordic model not exist?), but because the corporations stand to lose under a left wing Government. Blair worked that out very early and it's no coincidence that not many would describe New Labour as a left wing party.

If you were to study the media, and use their reporting as the measure of support for the political parties, you would have to come to the conclusion that the Conservatives have the overwhelming support of the public, but in reality 37% voted Tory to 30% for Labour in 2015 – that is not represented in our media. It's not why Labour lost the election, but it is an aggravating factor and always will be.

And also, SS stated that 'Consequently his (Corbyns) "support" is skewed way off into the far extremes of the left', but if you actually look at his policies, many have substantial backing from the public. The public support policies such as rent controls, re-nationaliation of rail and energy companies, higher taxes for corporations etc. The problem is, implementation of those policies would come at the expense of said corporations and so he's dismissed as another looney left leader. SS also said that because of the vocal elements on the left of Labour, they are seen as not far from a 'bunch of communists'. Yet, given what has been said by the vocal elements on the right of the Conservative party regarding the referendum, why are they not widely viewed as a 'bunch of facists'? Both labels are equally lazy and inaccurate, but it appears that only the left have to deal with it.

In fact, we have recently the perfect example of this. Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson both recently evoked the Nazis, yet only one was deemed anti-Semitic, despite both comments being factually correct, and IMO, within context. The Daily Mail ran a whole 2 page spread about ED Milliband's Dad with the headline 'The man who hated Britain'. After Cameron's Tax affairs were brought up, and Corbyn said he should come clean, an LBC asked whether Corbyn should resign for that statement. The simple fact is the right doesn't have to contend with this type of media negative media influence, and that is a huge reason why Corbyn is unelectable.

[Zak33]

And that is because of lobbying. Rich, powerful corporations effectively pay for influence within Governments to benefit their interests,...................................... The simple fact is the right doesn't have to contend with this type of media negative media influence, and that is a huge reason why Corbyn is unelectable.

you have to play with the hands you're dealt, right?

ie... play on the sports field provided.

or,,.,more bluntly....but reworded to be forum suitable...."you have to urinate through the penis you were born with"

changing the landscape is going to take an eternity, if ever. it won't happen in this election. Rich people won't spread the wealth making the poor richer. Large corporations wont suddenly decide that money is bad. Or that they don't need to make it. Because they DO, so that they can employ people, and pay pensions. All the investments anyone is involved in survives because of those profits.

And to MAKE profits, companies must defend their status. If they lobby to do so, and they do, then Government has to decide how to swing.

So... for a party to win in has to BE electable and it has to HAVE an ELECTABLE leader and then.. and only then.. can they slooooowly.. soooo sloooooowly.. make changes.

(then everyone will hate them instead and we go round the houses again.)

[opel80uk]

you have to play with the hands you're dealt, right?

ie... play on the sports field provided.

or,,.,more bluntly....but reworded to be forum suitable...."you have to urinate through the penis you were born with"

changing the landscape is going to take an eternity, if ever. it won't happen in this election. Rich people won't spread the wealth making the poor richer. Large corporations wont suddenly decide that money is bad. Or that they don't need to make it. Because they DO, so that they can employ people, and pay pensions. All the investments anyone is involved in survives because of those profits.

And to MAKE profits, companies must defend their status. If they lobby to do so, and they do, then Government has to decide how to swing.

So... for a party to win in has to BE electable and it has to HAVE an ELECTABLE leader and then.. and only then.. can they slooooowly.. soooo sloooooowly.. make changes.

(then everyone will hate them instead and we go round the houses again.)

No, not quite. The gains the far left and the far right have making been making, both here and abroad, are precisely because they both are tired of waiting ad nauseam for changes to a system that is designed specifically to stop change. What is happening is not coincidental.

[SeriousSam]

That's not a bad analysis, except the one, glaring, omission of why the left tends to fair badly. And that is because of lobbying. Rich, powerful corporations effectively pay for influence within Governments to benefit their interests, and there are now so many conflicts of interests going on that we no longer see them as conflicts of interests – we see them as the accepted norm. And the left, with their high taxation policy is never, ever going to be a friend of those corporations, so the media – owned by rich, powerful corporations do their own lobbying. Any party to the left will always have to face an incredibly hostile media, not because as Peter suggests that left economies tend to fare worse (does the Nordic model not exist?), but because the corporations stand to lose under a left wing Government. Blair worked that out very early and it's no coincidence that not many would describe New Labour as a left wing party.

Everyone apart from "special snowflakes" stand to lose under an atavistic left wing government, as the world which existed when that form of Labour party / Unions were needed is long gone. The whole "corporations are evil" shtick is simplistic nonsense. Unilever for example has done far more the environment and workers rights than any government. People just like to blame everyone else as they don't want to face facts... the world is foobah because we ALL made it that way. As for the Nordic model being "socialist" that's a convenient myth that people like to propagate. Most industry is still privately or Co-operatively owned within a market driven system. What they have is "social democracy" which is nice and easy to manage with a population of less than 10Million.

If you were to study the media, and use their reporting as the measure of support for the political parties, you would have to come to the conclusion that the Conservatives have the overwhelming support of the public, but in reality 37% voted Tory to 30% for Labour in 2015 – that is not represented in our media. It's not why Labour lost the election, but it is an aggravating factor and always will be.

Actually you would come to the conclusion that everyone hates politicians, all the political parties are incompetent and we'd be better off doing as the media tells us. Outrageous negative opinion sells better than anything else. Ironically the Telegraph is the most anti Conservative paper, to an extent which is sometimes laughable.

And also, SS stated that 'Consequently his (Corbyns) "support" is skewed way off into the far extremes of the left', but if you actually look at his policies, many have substantial backing from the public. The public support policies such as rent controls, re-nationaliation of rail and energy companies, higher taxes for corporations etc. The problem is, implementation of those policies would come at the expense of said corporations and so he's dismissed as another looney left leader. SS also said that because of the vocal elements on the left of Labour, they are seen as not far from a 'bunch of communists'. Yet, given what has been said by the vocal elements on the right of the Conservative party regarding the referendum, why are they not widely viewed as a 'bunch of facists'? Both labels are equally lazy and inaccurate, but it appears that only the left have to deal with it.

You have to be very careful when it comes to deciding what has substantial backing from the public. Taking rail nationalisation as an example, a lot of people including myself don't agree with it being in private hands. However, we'd still rather that than state control which leads to (a) greater incompetence and (b) increased union shenanigans. Furthermore people have a bad habit of saying "that sounds like a good idea" until someone else points out how it will directly impact them and "poof" they change their tune. In regards to lazy and inaccurate labelling, everyone has to deal with it because that is how the internet has changed things. Don't like the new ghostbusters trailer... your sexist, and so on. You just see and remember the "anti-left" more because it has a negative emotional impact. That's not to say that Corbyn doesn't come in for a greater amount of stick, as he does. However, it is also a problem of his own making. Within minutes of watching one of the VICE News clips I realised that we were watching a real life David Brent, and I'm not the only one that spotted this. He projects zero credibility to anyone but "the initiated", so therefore anything he says is treated with derision.

In fact, we have recently the perfect example of this. Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson both recently evoked the Nazis, yet only one was deemed anti-Semitic, despite both comments being factually correct, and IMO, within context. The Daily Mail ran a whole 2 page spread about ED Milliband's Dad with the headline 'The man who hated Britain'. After Cameron's Tax affairs were brought up, and Corbyn said he should come clean, an LBC asked whether Corbyn should resign for that statement. The simple fact is the right doesn't have to contend with this type of media negative media influence, and that is a huge reason why Corbyn is unelectable.

Ken Livingstone's comment about Hitler supporting Zionism is factually incorrect. Now whether or not he intended to be anti-Semitic is debatable, but as he has previous it is understandable that people jumped straight to that conclusion. Boris Johnson mentioned the Nazi's in passing as part of a point about Europe wanting to get back to some notional ideal superstate which last existed under the Romans. In both cases sensationalist / misleading headlines appeared, and media / public frenzy ensued to some degree. Thus, if either of the two was hard done by it was Boris not Ken. The simple fact of the matter is anyone who doesn't support a particular narrative being sold by the media, pressure groups etc. is lambasted irrespective of the truth. Welcome to the modern "safe space" world where everyone's opinion is valid as long as it is the same as mine or I'll no platform your ass... and sadly this is just the warm-up... wait until kids that live now grow up.

[The Hand]

Cameron just got a bit mauled on the SKY News debate. Gove's turn tomorrow.

[Zak33]

No, not quite. The gains the far left and the far right have making been making, both here and abroad, are precisely because they both are tired of waiting ad nauseam for changes to a system that is designed specifically to stop change. What is happening is not coincidental.

I agree the far,left and far right have made bigger gains

That's,what happens whn you start at zero. The first gains ARE bigger.

When you're already top... Gains are smaller....and you can slip back a little too.

Doesn't mean you're wrong or losing yet.

[opel80uk]

Everyone apart from "special snowflakes" stand to lose under an atavistic left wing government, as the world which existed when that form of Labour party / Unions were needed is long gone. The whole "corporations are evil" shtick is simplistic nonsense. Unilever for example has done far more the environment and workers rights than any government. People just like to blame everyone else as they don't want to face facts... the world is foobah because we ALL made it that way. As for the Nordic model being "socialist" that's a convenient myth that people like to propagate. Most industry is still privately or Co-operatively owned within a market driven system. What they have is "social democracy" which is nice and easy to manage with a population of less than 10Million.

Who said corporations are evil? I said corporations lobby for their own interests and, by and large, their interests are to make profit. The fact that Unilever are socially conscious (although I'd like to see the evidence that they have 'done far more the environment and workers rights than any government') is neither here nor there – the issue is the extent at which corporations are able to influence Governments. That should be a problem for anyone with even a passing interest in democracy. The comment about the Unions, IMO, betrays both an idealogical opposition to, and lack of knowledge about them. Regardless of whether you oppose them or not, the notion that they are irrelevant in todays world is simply false. Here in Ireland, for example – After the EU bailout and when the government was attempting to implement it's austerity plan, it was the Unions that negotiated a deal that was acceptable to the workers (the first Government one was not). Workers in the Public Sector here in Ireland would have lower pay, less A/L and longer working hours right now if it were not for the Unions – that's accepted now even by the Government. And even as I write this, it is the Unions leading the calls and forcing the Government to look at pay restoration, which most of the parties included as part of their manifesto's – without the Unions it would have simply been a non issue. So whilst I have no problem with someone being opposed to them, it is entirely false to say that Unions are irrelevant for those who they represent.

Ironically the Telegraph is the most anti Conservative paper, to an extent which is sometimes laughable.

Nonsense. The Telegraph may well not be a fan of Camerons leadership, especially in light of his Governments anti-Brexit stance, and nor are they fans of the modernising voices in the party, but the notion that the 'Telegraph is the most anti Conservative paper' is risable. You talk about sensationalism, and then engage in it yourself.

You have to be very careful when it comes to deciding what has substantial backing from the public. Taking rail nationalisation as an example, a lot of people including myself don't agree with it being in private hands. However, we'd still rather that than state control which leads to (a) greater incompetence and (b) increased union shenanigans. Furthermore people have a bad habit of saying "that sounds like a good idea" until someone else points out how it will directly impact them and "poof" they change their tune. In regards to lazy and inaccurate labelling, everyone has to deal with it because that is how the internet has changed things. Don't like the new ghostbusters trailer... your sexist, and so on. You just see and remember the "anti-left" more because it has a negative emotional impact. That's not to say that Corbyn doesn't come in for a greater amount of stick, as he does. However, it is also a problem of his own making. Within minutes of watching one of the VICE News clips I realised that we were watching a real life David Brent, and I'm not the only one that spotted this. He projects zero credibility to anyone but "the initiated", so therefore anything he says is treated with derision.

I don't have to be careful, because it's not me who is deciding what has support, YouGov who run the polls do. And whilst you might not want state ownership of the railways, a majority of the public do. You can argue all you like about the virtues of particular policies of Corbyns, but the ones I stated DO have substantial support, if you accept the YouGov polls as credible. And the most ironic part of your criticism of state owned railways, is that many of the privately owned ones here are owned by State owned foreign rail companies. If that situation is not arse about tit, I don't know what is. As for Corbyn's credibility – he is one of the few politicians who appears to say what he means, but because he doesn't fit the stereotypical image of a 'leader' or for that fact a politician, he is dismissed as a real life David Brent. The saying that we get the politicians we deserve has never been more apt.

Ken Livingstone's comment about Hitler supporting Zionism is factually incorrect. Now whether or not he intended to be anti-Semitic is debatable, but as he has previous it is understandable that people jumped straight to that conclusion. Boris Johnson mentioned the Nazi's in passing as part of a point about Europe wanting to get back to some notional ideal superstate which last existed under the Romans. In both cases sensationalist / misleading headlines appeared, and media / public frenzy ensued to some degree. Thus, if either of the two was hard done by it was Boris not Ken. The simple fact of the matter is anyone who doesn't support a particular narrative being sold by the media, pressure groups etc. is lambasted irrespective of the truth. Welcome to the modern "safe space" world where everyone's opinion is valid as long as it is the same as mine or I'll no platform your ass... and sadly this is just the warm-up... wait until kids that live now grow up.

Perhaps 'supporting Zionism' is an extreme description, but Hitler certainly early at least expressed support for the Zionists aim of moving Jews to the Palestine, albeit for entirely different reasons as the Zionists. The notion that describing the agreement signed as 'supporting' Zionism means Livingstone was being anti-semetic is farcical. And no, he doesn't have form – he once said a reporter (who turned out to be Jewish) was behaving like a concentration camp guard. That is at the very worse insensitive & offensive, but not in the slightest bit anti-Semitic. But yet you think it is Boris who was hard done by.

The actual simple fact is that the media owners are aware that their own interests are best served by a Conservative Government, and that their output reflects that. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but to pretend it doesn't happen, or that both the left and right have to contend with it equally is IMO ignorance, wilful or otherwise.

[SeriousSam]

Opel - I will reply in full, but am a tad busy with beetroot (don't ask) at the moment.

The comment about corporations being evil relates to an atavistic left wing government mentality. If I was going to accuse you of saying it I would have said "Your attitude that corporations are evil".

I stated "that form of Labour / Union" not all unions. Personally I do believe they have a role to play in a modern society, but "anti-boss / government" belligerence needs to be consigned to history.

In regards to the Telegraph comment I probably should have said "current Conservative". Furthermore I have a number of friends whose jobs involve reading a lot of news sources and we all agree that if there is one paper that goes in for criticising the Conservatives more than any other it is the Telegraph.

There a large number of flaws with YouGovs methodology, not least their penchant for only online polling.

If Corbyn was a man of principle he would be campaigning for leave.

Ken has always been pro-Palestine / anti-Israel, irrespective of the reality of any given situation.

The BBC which is the single most viewed news source in the UK is routinely accused of bias by Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP and so on... now you could argue that they are biased but only in terms of being against all political parties.

[Hero]

Cameron just got a bit mauled on the SKY News debate. Gove's turn tomorrow.

Mauled doesn't even begin to describe what happened there. I don't think anyone was prepared for that kind of utter trouncing.

[GreenPiggy]

In regards to the Telegraph comment I probably should have said "current Conservative". Furthermore I have a number of friends whose jobs involve reading a lot of news sources and we all agree that if there is one paper that goes in for criticising the Conservatives more than any other it is the Telegraph.

Whilst searching for 'Cameron' or 'Conservative' throws up some critical articles(probably 50% or less though) - in the interests of balance, I don't think it can compare to the sheer level of lunacy returned by this search:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=C...r=all&start=20

My particular favourites are:
"Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn 'showed off' naked Diane Abbott to impress Left-wing friends"
"Rigid, awkward, and utterly without charisma: why Jeremy Corbyn is the perfect star for our comedy musical"
"Jeremy Corbyn must be stopped"

[TheAnimus]

To be fair, that doesn't prove that they aren't anti Conservatives, just that they find so much dirt on Corbyn. I think most Telegraph readers like a smirk at him, he is kind of like a comedian really.

I mean Corbyn even came off horrifically badly in that Vice documentary, which should have been just a puff piece.

[Corky34]

Somethings been bugging me for a while, why's immigration mentioned so much in the debates surrounding the referendum when from what i can tell the referendum result, be it in or out, is not going to change the free movement of workers?

What i mean is that (afaik) the only way to absolve ourselves from that obligation is to leave the EEA/EFTA and that's not something, unless we have another referendum, that we're going to be given a choice about.

[scaryjim]

Somethings been bugging me for a while, why's immigration mentioned so much in the debates surrounding the referendum when from what i can tell the referendum result, be it in or out, is not going to change the free movement of workers?

What i mean is that (afaik) the only way to absolve ourselves from that obligation is to leave the EEA/EFTA and that's not something, unless we have another referendum, that we're going to be given a choice about.

Whether or not we remain in the EEA/EFTA is something that the presiding government will have to decide if there is a Leave result in the referendum. It's worth pointing out that the presiding goverment following a Leave vote may well not be the current government, as a Leave vote would put huge pressure on Cameron and he would almost certainly face a leadership challenge, most likely from Boris Johnson.

A Cameron-lead government acting on a Leave vote would, I suspect, seek membership of the EEA, which means (as you suggest) that much of the rhetoric pushed by the Leave campaign would become moot, as we would continue to participate in freedom of movement & trade, as well as sending a significant contribution to the EU budget. It would be the worst possible result for the Leave campaigners, really, because very little would change: in many ways it'd be worse than a Remain vote, as at least by remaining we have some say in EU legislation; as a member of the EEA but not the EU we would lose what little influence we have whilst still being bound by much EU law.

So far, the Leave campaign have not stated whether they would seek to remain in the EEA/EFTA. That's not surprising: they can't openly back staying in it for the reasons outlined above, but openly stating they would leave Europe completely leaves them, basically, having 2 years to negotiate beneficial trade agreements with the whole of the rest of the world. That's something I don't think anyone would describe as a trivial task.

But your final point is actually very pertinent. We're not being given a choice about the trade direction the UK takes after a Leave vote. This is a simple in the EU or not in the EU vote. All the details will be decided for you thereafter, whichever way you vote. And the chances are, the exact outcome will be decided by the parliamentary Conservative party, internally, on the basis of a leadership election. So, score one for the democratic process, huh?