REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's a competition now. We won, you lost.

The reasons aren't important.

 

[SLA]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-backers-sneering-ordinary-people-ian-lavery

State of this dickhead.

"Leftwing intellectuals" is meant to be a pejorative term now, is it? And it's not even true. What's the opposite to that anyway, "rightwing knuckleheads"? That's who you want to attract?

That's Labour.

I really resent the implication (actually it's more than an implication) that "ordinary" people only voted leave. It's wrong on so many levels. I presume by "ordinary" he means working class or poor. Well, plenty of people in those groups voted remain, and even if they didn't - it's perfectly possible to be working class/poor and also wrong. And frankly people are just plain wrong if they think Brexit is going to solve their problems and a party that purports to be on their side should be making a case for real solutions not just pandering to them because of one fucking stupid yes/no referendum.

*Nearly* everyone agrees that Brexit will make most people worse off in the short/medium term at least, and there are other parties already arguing for that shit - why on earth would you place yourself on that side of the fence?

 

[nimrod]

as a vehicle for promoting ‘change’ I think you could have argued a case for brexit. a fundamental problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any progressive change proposed. even today I don’t see any vision. papper wrote about breaking the corporate stranglehold, though absent any policies to do that, I only see it strengthened. a potential positive is the removal of a red herring as a primary cause of inequality, but that might have negative rather than positive consequences.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I'd say that sums it up 'had to go without at least two essentials such as shelter, food, heat, light, clothing', although I'd say that going without shelter or food on there own would suffice without adding a second.

In an earlier post you suggested that there was a problem with the definition of poverty that needed “sorting out” yet when asked you provide possibly the most draconian definition of poverty that very few people in this country would ever meet.

There are broadly speaking two definitions of poverty, absolute poverty (what you say) and relative poverty (a measure used consistently by many different organisations).

If you compare the poorest person in the U.K. with poor people in Eritrea (for example) the U.K. person is probably going to come out favourably in that comparison. Measures of Relative Poverty take into account the context of the society they live in.

If you are unable to interact with the society you live in because you don’t have enough money then you are in poverty...and that means more than just shelter, food, heat etc

 

[Sniffer]

For some, the prospect of no deal is too frightening to countenance, but we need to be prepared for what is an ever growing threat.

If we do crash out on 31 October some on the right will be eager to exploit their newfound freedom to roll back protections in the workplace, exploit the environment and enrich themselves. We need to be united and ready to rally the entire Labour movement and all progressive forces in the country against this.

If the Tories do take us over the edge, we must be ready to spell out what a Labour future for our country looks like outside of the EU. If this happens, Britain will need a Labour party focused on tackling the injustices at the heart of the problems our country faces more than ever.

How about this Lavery you twat. If you believe that all of the above could happen, why not rally all of the labour movement in having an opportunity to ensure that the shit show that you describe doesn't happen? Why wait for disaster to fight against the likely outcome. As a union man who has a workforce who goes against the Union wishes, would you say ah fuck it, you voted for it, I'll pick up the pieces afterwards. Or, when faced with the worst case scenario, would you try your hardest to persuade them that their initial idea may not be the correct one. If they vote for it again then so be it, but not to try would be a dereliction of your duties in representing them.

 

[nimrod]

Frequently. Democracy, democracy, democracy. I actually think a lot have forgotten why they voted for Brexit.

it figures. bunch of utter bullshitters. true democrats focus on the principles and delivery of democracy, not on wanking over an end result. i mean what could be less democratic than giving 'the people' a choice of only 2 options, one of which is so ill defined as to leave the country still in the mess we are in today several years later. a choice of one perhaps? of course, a 'choice of one' is exactly where the leading political parties would like us to be, providing they're the one. so in some way it is just desserts on them for highjacking the democratic principles they claim to hold dear for their own nefarious ends.

 

[leedswolf]

Is that a reflection on the economy or the society?

A reflection of economic policies, eg Austerity.

 

[AndyWolves]

I'm not sure if it fits in here or has already been mentioned but JRM has today said the justice has no place in politics and campaigns should be able to spout whatever bollocks they want and it's up to the opposition/public to call them out on it

Seriously, he's saying it's ok to lie because it's not his fault if he doesn't get called on it. What a fucking wankerish view on politics, the truth should be at the absolute forefront. Otherwise it becomes purely a popularity contest and we end up with absolute bullshitters in charge.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Standard Rees-Mogg cuntery.

If you wait long enough he will probably say an obscure word like folderol to try and prove how clever he is, when all it actually shows is that he is a colossal fucking cunt

 

[Penk Wolf]

A reflection of economic policies, eg Austerity.

So you agree.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Well clearly not from what I can see.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Well clearly not from what I can see.

Well surely economic policies are set by society not how well the economy is doing, so I assumed he agreed.

So say the economy is booming (which it is) do you expect conservatives (society) to change it’s policies?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

This is not booming by any standards at all.

The very best you can say is we've somehow avoided a recession despite everything.

 

[Penk Wolf]

This is not booming by any standards at all.

The very best you can say is we've somehow avoided a recession despite everything.

You probably want to discuss that graph with TSB.

 

[leedswolf]

So you agree.

No. Quite the opposite.

 

[leedswolf]

Well surely economic policies are set by society not how well the economy is doing, so I assumed he agreed.

So say the economy is booming (which it is) do you expect conservatives (society) to change it’s policies?

Society and the State(Government) are two entirely different entities.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Well surely economic policies are set by society not how well the economy is doing, so I assumed he agreed.

So say the economy is booming (which it is) do you expect conservatives (society) to change it’s policies?

Alright let's do this on your terms...

For an economy to be 'booming' we need increases in the following:

Productivity No
Sales Yes
Real wages No (still not at pre-crash levels)

 

[Johnny75]

Alright let's do this on your terms...

For an economy to be 'booming' we need increases in the following:

Productivity No
Sales Yes
Real wages No (still not at pre-crash levels)

I presume you have figures for these?

 

[Penk Wolf]

Alright let's do this on your terms...

For an economy to be 'booming' we need increases in the following:

Productivity No
Sales Yes
Real wages No (still not at pre-crash levels)

Real wages are increasing though, however just because we have a good economy doesn’t necessarily mean that companies will increase wages.

 

[Johnny75]

Real wages are increasing though, however just because we have a good economy doesn’t necessarily mean that companies will increase wages.

Indeed, it's such a bland and uniformed statistic, much like pass completion or time of possession. A better analysis of the type of jobs and the growth in wages of those jobs would be better. It would tell us what percentage of people have disposable income and that would be a better measure of growth IMO.

It would also tell us which industries are in growth. I can't imagine the steel and automotive industries are growing (report out this morning saying production halved in April).