Brexit - Yes or No? - Poll added

[johnh]

Mellor, Labour don't really need to pair up with anyone to regain power. They just need to dump Corbyn and his cronies and convince the electorate that they can manage the economy. I have just analysed (as far as I can remember) my General Election voting habits since I became eligible to vote (1957). Its about equal between Tories and Labour, never voted Liberal. I always choose which party I think will be best for the country at a point in time. I thought John Major had the worst Government since the war in the 1990's and couldn't believe it when he got in. I voted for Blair and again when he did eventually get in. Labour's problem is twofold and always has been. First, they have a penchant for picking the wrong leader (eg Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Corbyn). Secondly, every Labour Government since the war has screwed the economy. By nature, I am a Social Democrat but can't bring myself to vote for a social democratic party that is incapable of running the country.

[Mellor]

Doesn't the fact that you feel able to shop around between 'left' and 'right' suggest the differences between both camps is too small to matter?

As for Corbyn, I can't see an inspirational leader to replace him, then again I can't see such a leader anywhere just now. He ( Corbyn) at least is trying to offer something 'different' and that difference appears to be winning over younger voters. Sadly I suspect a leader of Mandela's magnitude would struggle to form a labour Govt without the Scots. The battle in the industrial centres and London is won I think. In the Shires things are much different. I worry greatly about the legacy I'm leaving my kids; globally - global warming, nationally - the run down of 'services' and the alienation of the poorest (often with mental health issues).

I've no idea what it's like where you live but in the North West - Manchester with its booming media city is a good example - the increasing number of folk living on the streets is frightening. More frightening, no one in power appears particularly concerned.

[johnh]

No, at the time I made my decision which party to vote for, the 'differences' were quite big. Enough to sway my decision. They do say that you shouldn't worry about things that are out of your control. In the global context, what Britain does in respect of global warming will have an effect equal to the square root of sod all unless countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia are on board. We also have people living on the streets (I contribute regularly to 'meals for the homeless') and it begs the question 'why can't they get jobs?' The problem is that the number of different answers to this question are probably not far short of the number of people on the streets. In my experience, the number of people on the streets is no more than under the last Labour Government and when I worked in the City (London) in the late 1990's it was several times worse than now. So it is a critical social issue but not necessarily caused by (any) government policy.

[White Knight]

The difference in what people want dictactes what they view as success. Everyone wants their country to be made "great", but great for who? If it's for everyone, then everyone must pay and those that have more must pay more. This usually doesn't strike the well off as great. Great for them usually means money, position and privilege being rewarded. Conditions have to be created to facilitate the expansion of wealth. This usually takes the form of a deregulated society, no minimum standards, no minimum wage, free and untaxed movement of money and preferably higher interest rates. Profit and reward are not dirty words but they are relentless if not held in check. The poor pay, the weak and vulnerable are abandoned to sort themselves out, which just won't happen.

The other end of the spectrum is equally unpleasant. Great here leads to stifling initiative, reward for the ordinary, a sense of entitlement for everything, crippling dependence on the state for everything leading to a stagnant and moribund society.

It was between these extremes, that the EU was formed on a continent awash with refugees for many years after WW2. The attempt to strike a balance has been proven successful, mostly through ensuring those years were ones of peace and prosperity. The faults that undoubtedly exist, which can and should be addressed, in no way outweigh the core benefits to a continent that otherwise has only ever known war.

[johnh]

Its not the principle that people object to, its the reality. The EU is controlled by the elite, its an Oligarchy.
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that 61% of French voters have an 'unfavourable' view of the EU, compared with 48% in the UK. The head of the Friends of Europe think-tank in Brussels said 'The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform.'.......'The Germans are deeply alarmed at how suddenly the mood is shifting everywhere'.
Cameron, if he wasn't such a plonker and in thrall to the European elite, could have got a far better deal than he did. That could have been the starting point in reforming the EU. The principle is fine, it is just not working.

[Mellor]

I saw evidence recently which said the last Labour Govt had broken the back of living on the street. We can argue about the veracity of that but what's beyond doubt is the visual evidence and that's clear enough, for me, in the places I regularly frequent - homelessness is rising.

The biggest problem, to answer the why can't they get jobs question, is mental disability of some kind I believe. Don't think anyone disputes services for these folk have become increasingly inadequate - the NHS issue which is huge and growing. And of course councils stopped building houses.

There seems to be general agreement that the UK has prospered in the EU - it's no surprise the French are concerned, their economy was a fair bit bigger than ours when we joined.

Sadly the size of the economy doesn't equate to the size of our commitment to seeing everyone has a fair crack of the whip. Not just a UK problem of course, 1% of the world's population holds almost 50% of the wealth I believe.Twas ever thus but the 1% number doesn't change, only the % they own, sadly.

No one disputes the EU could do with an overhaul I think. Spring cleaning is far easier and cheaper than moving house though.

[johnh]

Yes, I agree. But you never know, us leaving might just be the catalyst for that overhaul and who knows, if we leave we might be voting to rejoin in 5 years time.

[Mellor]

We need saving from any more referenda. It's no way to run a country for me.

[White Knight]

We need saving from any more referenda. It's no way to run a country for me.

This is one I would have to disagree with on Mellor. As we have a written constituion in Ireland, the absolute key laws in our country can only be changed by the people in a referendum. So no matter how big a majority a party may have in parliament they cannot change certain positions that are constitionally protected. They have to go to the people for the last word, and such governments have regularly lost referenda in spite of a cockiness going into such campaigns based on their electoral mandate.

People here are quite proud of this privilege and feel it is one of the things that this state got right after gaining independence. Also I feel John's argument on stronger democractic represention is certainly addressed by a written constitution. Obviously, I'll let him confirm that himself - or not!

[Deleted User 2747]

They just need to .............. convince the electorate that they can manage the economy.

That is the most worn out mythology perpetuated by a Tory based press!

If you look at the facts and not the propaganda, you will find very little truth in the myth of Labour being the worst for the economy.