This would be a good time for the Labour party to call for a crack down on this disgusting outbreak of hate. And encourage more people to stand up for all vulnerable minorities everywhere.
Don't know about calling for a crack down, but Corbyn has encouraged people to stand up for minorities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh8S2lrevg
Buyer's remorse! It's a bit late isn't it. 
Voters’ remorse, or the morning after the night before
Everybody in British politics had been talking about the probable consequences of a vote to leave the European Union for months, but they are nevertheless all in shock now that that they face the reality of Brexit.
Gwynne Dyer
The level of voters’ remorse is so high that a rerun of the referendum today would probably produce the opposite result. But it is hard to imagine how such a thing could be justified. (Best two out of three referendums?)
The remorse has been driven by the collapse of the pound, panic in the markets, and other consequences of a “Leave” vote that the Brexit campaign had promised would not happen. Moreover, leaders of the “Leave” campaign like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Ian Duncan Smith are rapidly walking away from the inflated or simply untrue claims that they made during the campaign.
They have all renounced their promise that Britain would save half a billion dollars a week in contributions to the EU if it left. They now admit that Britain could not prevent free movement of EU citizens into Britain if it wants to have continued access to the EU’s “single market.”
“A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again,” admitted Leave campaigner and former Conservative cabinet minister Liam Fox.
It is also now clear that the EU will not be generous and patient in negotiating the British departure. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Bundestag that the EU would not tolerate British “cherry-picking” when negotiations on subjects like trade and the free movement of people finally begin. “There must be and will be a noticeable difference between whether a country wants to be a member of the European Union family or not,” she said.
The Brexit leaders had no plan for what to do after winning the referendum, probably because they didn’t really expect to win it. And their nightmare deepened when Prime Minister David Cameron, the man who had called the referendum in the belief that Brexit would be rejected, took his revenge on the leading Brexiteers.
Announcing his resignation, Cameron promised to stay in office until October to give the Conservative Party time to find a new leader. And during that time, contrary to his previous statements, he would not invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty.
Article 50 is the trigger that would start the irrevocable process of negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU. By not pulling it for months, Cameron is allowing time for the painful consequences of leaving the EU to mount up and become horribly clear. Then the new prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party, probably Boris Johnson, will have the honour of pulling the trigger and taking the blame for making that pain permanent.
So it’s hardly surprising that Johnson, despite having pulled off the most remarkable coup in British politics for decades, was looking distinctly glum on the morning after the night before. He looks and behaves like a well-bred British version of Donald Trump, but his “dumb blond” act is just a facade. His political future has been sabotaged, and he knows it.
But will all this fear and remorse really lead to some sort of turnaround in the exit process? Left to stew in its own juices for six months, British politics might eventually come up with a typically muddled compromise that postponed the final break with the EU indefinitely — but it isn’t going to have six months.
There has been great impatience with British behaviour in the other EU countries for many years. Britain has always been the odd man out, demanding exemptions from various rules and agreements, rebates on budgetary contributions, special treatment of every sort. And now that it has “decided” to leave (sort of), it’s playing the same old game, asking everybody else to wait while it deals with its domestic political problems.
“The European Union as a whole has been taken as a hostage by an internal party fight of the Tories (the British Conservatives),” said Martin Schultz, the president of the European Parliament. “And I'm not satisfied today to hear that (Cameron) wants to step down only in October and once more everything is put on hold until the Tories have decided about the next prime minister.”
To make matters worse, the opposition Labour Party is also descending into chaos, with leader Jeremy Corbyn facing a revolt over his half-hearted support for the “Remain” campaign, which may have been the main reason for Brexit’s narrow victory. (Half the Labour Party’s traditional supporters didn’t even know that their own party supported staying in the EU.) Both major British political parties, for the moment, are essentially leaderless.
British politics is a train wreck, unable and unwilling to respond to EU demands for rapid action, but the EU cannot afford to wait five or six months for the exit negotiations to begin. The markets need certainty about the future if they are not to go into meltdown, and one way or another the EU’s leaders will try to provide it. It is going to be a very ugly divorce.
http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Columnists/2016-07-02/article-4575193...
Have to disagree. The EU is a threat to the wage level of workers. It is structured to protect capital while subject workers to a free market.
Do you mean that the UK bourgeoisie is not protecting capital? Well, that's certainly a new take. You should present your findings over on the Proprotional Representation thread. Most posters there are convinced the countries of Europe are more left than the UK. I guess it all depends on which idea you're trying to defend.
I'll add this, and it should be placed on the masthead of every union, every labour organzation, and every left political group
"Workers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."
Pitting the workers of one country against the workers of another is an age old strategy employed by the bourgeoisie. Of course, it requires borders that restrict the movement of workers for best results.
[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-eu-nationals-r... passes Labour MP Andy Burnham's motion for EU nationals to retain right to stay in UK; msot Tories absent[/url]
Quote from above Gwynne Dyer article:
...Article 50 is the trigger that would start the irrevocable process of negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU. By not pulling it for months, Cameron is allowing time for the painful consequences of leaving the EU to mount up and become horribly clear. Then the new prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party, probably Boris Johnson, will have the honour of pulling the trigger and taking the blame for making that pain permanent.So it’s hardly surprising that Johnson, despite having pulled off the most remarkable coup in British politics for decades, was looking distinctly glum on the morning after the night before. He looks and behaves like a well-bred British version of Donald Trump, but his “dumb blond” act is just a facade. His political future has been sabotaged, and he knows it.
Dyer must have written this before Michael Gove administered the coup de grace to Boris Johnson. So the new prime minister may be Gove, and not Johnson. For how that might have happened, see my post in the Brexit thread, re: Conspiracy Theory.
Johnson was not on board the 'Leave' side in the beginning. It was Gove who talked him into, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was Gove who talked Cameron into first, promulgating the referendum, then actually holding it.
But regardless, and regardless of the fact I have zero respect for Gwynne Dyer, I think he is correct, there is a serious case of 'buyers remorse'.
I suspect Article 50 may never be invoked. All the leaders of the 'Leave' campaign are gone, except Gove (who, by the way, has the distinction of causing the crash of both the leader of 'Remain' and the leader of 'Leave'), so who is going to carry on the fight to declare Article 50?
Overall, a gigantic clusterfuck, with no end in sight.
Good for them! Even the gutless Tories should get credit for at least stepping down.
This would be a good time for the Labour party to call for a crack down on this disgusting outbreak of hate. And encourage more people to stand up for all vulnerable minorities everywhere.
Don't know about calling for a crack down, but Corbyn has encouraged people to stand up for minorities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh8S2lrevg
Getting more people to stand with them against this bigotry, letting the willingfully ignorant know it's not socially acceptable anywhere, is probably even more important. But I also believe that stronger legal measures, more vigorously enforced, would help make the haters think twice before acting out.
Have to disagree. The EU is a threat to the wage level of workers. It is structured to protect capital while subject workers to a free market.Do you mean that the UK bourgeoisie is not protecting capital? Well, that's certainly a new take. You should present your findings over on the Proprotional Representation thread. Most posters there are convinced the countries of Europe are more left than the UK. I guess it all depends on which idea you're trying to defend.
I'll add this, and it should be placed on the masthead of every union, every labour organzation, and every left political group
"Workers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."
Pitting the workers of one country against the workers of another is an age old strategy employed by the bourgeoisie. Of course, it requires borders that restrict the movement of workers for best results.
Employing Karl Marx are we now? I think the issue Rev, your desire to insinuate your opposition to PR here aside, is not whether big capital will still work to protect their own self-interest regardless, but whether voters anywhere can employ their democratic rights to oppose their narrow agenda. It's not about the relative state of the UK versus continental Europe, it's about the EU that has the neo-liberal agenda written right into constitution (it was built on a common market) and the ability to override the expressed will of its member's citizens. The European Parliament, again, only has a reactive congressional role in making the rules, the unelected executive is almost unaccountable. And under their command the EU has drifted steadily to the right. Their economic crisis seems only to have strengthened their hand.
'yob' is a classist insult. Try to learn the context of English words before using them.
Sorry, I was just repeating what others have posted here. I admit I'm not up on all the nuances of English slang, but I am working class myself (if that term still applies) and I assumed it's similar to our word "Yahoo". Minus perhaps the sometimes affectionate useage, when teasing friends. If someone keeps supporting people who exploit them, then blame the results on others based on nothing but national chauvinism, then I don't consider them friends. Maybe "Redneck" would be more accurate.
**
**
[b]Brexit has put the UK in an impossible position. This Venn diagram explains why.[/b][IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2z6i9fc.jpg[/IMG]
Quantian's chart points out that there are basically three possible ways the negotiations could turn out — and each has major flaws.
1) "Clean break": In this scenario, the UK just leaves the EU without negotiating any sort of alternative arrangements in place. This option could be disruptive for many EU citizens and businesses, but EU leaders wouldn’t have any way to stop it. And Brexit supporters in the UK would find it acceptable.
The problem: Just quitting would trigger a severe recession in the UK, as the British economy depends on free access to the European common market. Forty-four percent of British exports go to the EU, and the UK financial sector depends on free movement of capital between Britain and Europe. No British leader would knowingly crash the UK economy, so they won’t agree to a "clean break." (There is a chance one could be forced into it, however. If Britain triggers Article 50, a clean break automatically happens in two years absent an exit deal between the UK and EU.)
2) "EEA + deal": In this scenario, the UK negotiates a deal with the EU, which would allow it to remain in the EEA but would exempt it from other EU rules — most notably, free migration rules — that Brexit supporters hate.
The problem: EU leaders seem unlikely to agree to this. They don’t want to reward Britain’s vote with favorable exit terms, for fear that voters in other countries (like Greece, France, or the Netherlands) will take this as a sign that they could get a similar deal. So while this solution would work for British voters and leaders, it’s unacceptable to European leaders.
3) "Annul vote": In this scenario, British leaders call backsies on the referendum results and simply refuse to ever submit Article 50 notification. This would prevent the UK leadership from owning the disastrous economic consequences of Brexit, and European leaders would celebrate it as a step away from the brink.
The problem: "Leave" supporters in the UK would feel betrayed and very, very angry — and even some "Remain" supporters might see it as undemocratic. The political backlash against a UK prime minister who calls "Bracksies" could be immense.
So every option available to the UK leadership right now is either politically unviable or economically disastrous.
etc ...
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12098156/brexit-eu-britain-venn-diagram
The EU will work something out with Britain because if they fail to do so it's mutual destruction. That's why they are freaking out. They don't really want Britain to invoke article 50. They are scared shitless. Britain still represents 17% of the EU's GDP. That is why they are allowing individual countries to ratify CETA rather than imposing it which was the plan so lucky us. Brexit is good news for Canada. Claims that it will easily pass are ridiculous. All the EU countries individually have a veto over the deal now. Greece has long said they will veto it.
http://canadians.org/blog/greek-government-criticizes-ceta-lack-protecti...
After the Council of the European Union (where national government ministers from each EU country meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies) met on May 13, Naftemporiki.gr reported, "The Greek government expressed reservations over the ratification process for [CETA], with the relevant Greek minister outlining Athens’ positions... The Greek side also expressed displeasure over the manner in which negotiations were concluded, pointing to a lack of protection for geographic indicators, which would deonote eponymous agricultural products, for instance. [Greek Economy Minister Giorgos Stathakis] also called for continued dialogue to find a mutually acceptable solution."
This is a huge win for the anti CETA movement in Europe.
https://stop-ttip.org/blog/its-eu-official-opposition-to-ttip-keeps-incr...
The more citizens know about TTIP and CETA, the less they want them – that’s the essence of the European Commission’s latest poll. ....
In four EU countries, the majority of the population is now against the EU-US free trade agreement. In Austria and Germany more than half the population is opposed – in Austria it’s no less than a total of 70%, in Germany a total of 59%. Slovenia is new to the list. Here, the majority of the population now also opposes TTIP (in spring 2015 this was not yet the case). In Luxembourg, 47% of the population is against it....
That is active opposition. It can't be assumed that the rest support CETA. When you deduct people who are not politically involved and don't vote that leaves a small minority that actively support it. Every single country is going to face a battle to ratify it and if even only one country doesn't ratify it CETA fails.
When Malmström does formally refer CETA to the Council, she’ll make a recommendation as to whether the agreement should be considered mixed and require the ratification of the parliaments of all 28 members to be fully brought into force, and the extent to which it can be brought into force provisionally.
In the past, the EU has brought into force trade agreements with other partners such as South Korea — provisionally but almost fully — after an EU Parliament vote, effectively rendering individual member state Parliament votes much less meaningful.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ceta-european-commission-ratification-mi...
The EU chose mixed specifically because of Brexit. They were afraid to give activists more ammunition against the EU. The EU could afford to lose Greece if it came to that. It would hurt, but they took a hard line because punishing Greece was a warning to other countries. Any negative financial impact would have been temporary. The EU is acting as though Brexit will hurt mainly Britain and it may well hurt Britain more but that is not to say that the EU won't take a serious hit too. This is far worse than Greece leaving the union.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2371_en.htm
To allow for a swift signature and provisional application, so that the expected benefits are reaped without unnecessary delay, the Commission has decided to propose CETA as 'mixed' agreement. This is without prejudice to its legal view, as expressed in a case currently being examined by the European Court of Justice concerning the trade deal reached between the EU and Singapore. With this step, the Commission makes its contribution for the deal to be signed during the next EU-Canada Summit, in October.
Nonsense. They are claiming they have the right to unilaterally ratify it on behalf of all member countries which is obviously faster than requiring countries to ratify individually.
From a strict legal standpoint, the Commission considers this agreement to fall under exclusive EU competence. However, the political situation in the Council is clear, and we understand the need for proposing it as a 'mixed' agreement, in order to allow for a speedy signature."
After receiving the green light from the Council and the consent of the European Parliament it will be possible to provisionally apply the agreement.
The plan now is to make it a fait accompli before countries have a chance to veto the deal.
Brexit is good news for activists worldwide. It will help defeat CETA, TPP and TTIP.
The EU will work something out with Britain because if they fail to do so it's mutual destruction. That's why they are freaking out. They don't really want Britain to invoke article 50. They are scared shitless. Britain still represents 17% of the EU's GDP...
The problem from the UK point of view is that a large, a very large, part of the UK GDP is the financial services industry. France and Germany are already talking to the various financial hoiuses about moving from the UK.
That's a relatively easy move compared to trying to move industrial infrastructure, and with the UK out of the EU, the biggest single reason the financial houses are in the UK is gone.
The UK already has the second largest external debt in the world (after the USA). However much damage this would do to Europe, and I don't think it would be terminal, the economy of the UK would collapse. To say nothing of the possible loss of Scotland.
Free access to the UK market is nice for the EU. Free access to the EU market is essential for the UK.
Free access to the UK market is nice for the EU. Free access to the EU market is essential for the UK.
It's a lot more than just nice. 17% of GDP is substantial. Your analogy is like saying breaking every bone in your body is better than dying. True, but most people want to avoid both. It's not even the economic hit they fear the most. It's the disintegration of the EU.
With Britain gone Germany dominates even more and there is already a great deal of resentment against them for having invited refugees to storm Europe's borders. It's costing the EU a lot of money to deal with the issue and no one wants to share the burden with Germany. They are having to pay Turkey to send people back. Other European countries are refusing to commit to taking a percentage of them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-eu-workers-idUSKCN0ZJ0VD
The European Union should swiftly modify the regulation allowing pay differentials between seconded and local workers or France will stop applying it, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on Sunday.
French politicians and unions have blamed the system of seconded or "posted" workers, allowing employers to pay them no more than the minimum rate in the host country, as the cause of job losses in France, particularly in the livestock industry.
"The French government is seeking to convince (the EU), and many countries agree, that we need to change. There must be equal treatment upwards to fight social dumping," he told TF1 television in an interview.
"If it is not possible to convince ... France will not apply this directive."....
The European Commission has proposed making the pay of the two categories the same. But several Central European countries such as Hungary and Poland oppose this, saying it would be disadvantageous to them and would threaten jobs.
and
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-slovakia-idUSKCN0ZG25S?feed...
Germany, France and Italy held three-way talks on Monday to consider the 'Brexit' vote. Two days earlier, the EU's six founding members, also including Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, had held a meeting of foreign ministers.
"The future of the EU can no longer be defined without active involvement of the states that joined after 2004," Fico said. The bulk of the post-2004 entrants are former communist nations from central and eastern Europe.
Slovakia and the other so-called Visegrad states - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - are calling for more powers to be returned to EU capitals and a reduction in the role of the executive European Commission in Brussels.
and
http://www.france24.com/en/20160707-eu-commission-spain-portugal-risk-pe...
The European Commission on Thursday officially declared Spain and Portugal in violation of the EU rules on government overspending, the first step towards unprecedented penalties against members of the 28-country bloc.
"The Commission confirms that Spain and Portugal will not correct their excessive deficits by the recommended deadline," the EU's executive arm said in a statement.
If endorsed by the EU's finance ministers, the commission is then legally obliged to propose fines against the two neighbouring countries, which were both hit hard by the financial crisis.
"Lately, the two countries have veered off track in the correction of their excessive deficits and have not met their budgetary targets," said Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU Commission's vice-president in charge of the euro.
"We stand ready to work together with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to define the best path ahead," he said.
Many EU powers led by Germany have long hoped for the commission to finally crack down on public overspenders, but with populist fires burning after the Brexit vote, ministers meeting in Brussels on Tuesday could decide to delay their immediate endorsement.
"There is uncertainty creeping in light of the UK vote result," an EU diplomat told AFP.
and
Who is calling for a Frexit?
Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right National Front party, is leading calls for French independence from Brussels rule.
Ms Le Pen has declared that she is ‘Madame Frexit’ and has promised to hold a EU referendum within six months if she gets into power next year
She says that calls for referendums are “ringing throughout” Europe in the wake of the Brexit victory in the UK last week.....
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the the far-left party Front de Gauche (FG), is also pushing for France to leave the EU.
Mr Mélenchon and Ms Le Pen are both set to stand on Eurosceptic platforms in the French presidential election in spring 2017.
Another presidential hopeful Bruno Le Maire, a former secretary of state for European affairs, has also called for a referendum on redefining the European project.....
More than 60% of French people view the EU unfavourably, according to the latest research by US think tank Pew Research Center.
Over half of French voters also want their own in/out referendum on EU membership, found another survey by the University of Edinburgh.
If there was a EU referendum in France, 33% would vote to leave, 40% would vote to remain and 22% were undecided, the study found.
French Euroscepticism has been fuelled by the economic troubles of the eurozone crisis and the migrant crisis in Calais and other parts of France.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/685426/Frexit-what-is-French-exit...
The financial centre in London is not going to move to the EU anytime soon. The EU is in turmoil. Even with negotiations on to leave the EU Britain remains a very safe and relatively secure place to be. With the future of the EU so uncertain there is no reason to leave London anytime soon.
Even with all that external debt the US dollar soars whenever there is financial turmoil in the markets. The British pound is probably a lot more secure than the Euro right now.
The powerful like to scaremonger predicting economic collapse if they don't get their way and if a country is weak like Greece it can work to force them to tow the line. Had Greece opted for leaving the wealthy would have been able to visit enormous pain on the country, virtually destroy it.
The EU can't do that to Britain. They can give them a hard time but Britain is under the protection of the US as their closest war-mongering partner. CETA is likely doomed but a dupicate trade agreement can be made with Canada. the US and Australia.
Predictions of doom for Britain are much exagerated.
Pondering, how can you post with such preternatural certainty about issues which you clearly have very little understanding of? I don't mean to say that I know more than you do, but I recognize that I am not an economist, and I haven't got anywhere near enough background knowledge about the european economy to even guess what will be the results of Brexit. I don't say you are wrong, I just say that you are posting wild ass guesses as serious predictions, as if you actually were an expert in the field.
Free access to the UK market is nice for the EU. Free access to the EU market is essential for the UK.
It's a lot more than just nice. 17% of GDP is substantial.
What percentage of the UK GDP is trade with the EU?
...The financial centre in London is not going to move to the EU anytime soon.
A large part of the reason the financial houses are in the UK is because the UK had free access to the EU, yet still had their own currency. With the loss of free access, that advantage is gone, and if you looked around, you would find many analysts who are saying exactly that.
But just in general terms, you have a small party, and a large party. Who is more likely to be hurt by a separation? It doesn't take a lot of analysis to see that the small party is much more likely to suffer more than the large party. Remember also that the one bright spot for the UK, North Sea oil, could disappear if Scotland exits the UK, leaving behind a rump of England and Wales.
No, I'm afraid the consequences for the UK are far more serious than for the EU.
As far as the USA involvement, I wouldn't take that too seriously. Canada, with less than half the population, has three times the trade with the USA as the UK has. There is a lot of foreign direct investment between the UK and the USA, but a good part of that is predicated on the UK being in the EU. Total trade between the UK and the USA equals a sixth of the USA yearly military budget. And while Israel buys the US a pied a terre in the Middle East, the UK doesn't buy them much outside of guaranteed access to the EU. They're not going to come rushing to the defense of the realm, especially if a left Labour government wins the next election.
Pondering, how can you post with such preternatural certainty about issues which you clearly have very little understanding of? I don't mean to say that I know more than you do, but I recognize that I am not an economist, and I haven't got anywhere near enough background knowledge about the european economy to even guess what will be the results of Brexit. I don't say you are wrong, I just say that you are posting wild ass guesses as serious predictions, as if you actually were an expert in the field.
I present my argument, my logic, then my conclusion. How is that any different than people like Rev. Pesky declaring that:
The problem from the UK point of view is that a large, a very large, part of the UK GDP is the financial services industry. France and Germany are already talking to the various financial hoiuses about moving from the UK.
That's a relatively easy move compared to trying to move industrial infrastructure, and with the UK out of the EU, the biggest single reason the financial houses are in the UK is gone.
The UK already has the second largest external debt in the world (after the USA). However much damage this would do to Europe, and I don't think it would be terminal, the economy of the UK would collapse. To say nothing of the possible loss of Scotland.
Free access to the UK market is nice for the EU. Free access to the EU market is essential for the UK.
Did I miss the presentation of his credentials?
It is obvious that I am presenting my opinion, my conclusions, which people can agree with or not. I am not presenting myself as some sort of expert. There is no reason to pepper my post with "I believe" or "I think". Surely readers can figure out I am presenting my opinion with a supporting argument. I haven't noticed anyone here mistaking me for an expert.
Why are you more interested in criticizing my confidence in my analysis than in dealing with the actual arguments I am presenting.
I don't often agree that I am wrong but when someone presents a convincing argument to me I do change my mind. The most recent example is in the BLM/Pride thread.
Are the posters predicting complete economic collapse experts?
I predicted Trudeau's win even when the NDP were leading in the polls and I was right about why he would win. I was right about Mulcair being politically tone deaf. I understand what drives everyday non-activist types who don't pay attention to politics probably better than anyone else here and I have more respect for them than most posters here. I can see the common thread between Ford, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn and Trudeau. While everyone here was insisting that Trudeau is an idiot, I recognized his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Some people here are still convinced that Trudeau will be "exposed" all the while he is gaining in popularity. When Mulcair was leading in Quebec people declared that Trudeau didn't have a chance in Quebec, that his rejection of Quebec nationalism and his support for the Clarity Act would do him in.
It wasn't all good guesses. I present arguments, I explain what my opinion is based on, and you come back with "you're no expert". Well I have a way better track record of predicting public reaction than most posters yet instead of thinking about what I am saying and responding to my arguments you respond with empty accusations or declarations about me instead of about what I am saying.
...I predicted Trudeau's win even when the NDP were leading in the polls and I was right about why he would win. I was right about Mulcair being politically tone deaf. I understand what drives everyday non-activist types who don't pay attention to politics probably better than anyone else here...
I'm curious. What does 'politically tone deaf' mean? And what does drive non-activist types?
-----
...I predicted Trudeau's win even when the NDP were leading in the polls and I was right about why he would win. I was right about Mulcair being politically tone deaf. I understand what drives everyday non-activist types who don't pay attention to politics probably better than anyone else here...I'm curious. What does 'politically tone deaf' mean? And what does drive non-activist types?
Politically tone deaf means not understanding what will and won't play well with voters. As most people already know, elections are decided in the last 3 weeks, or last week, of an election period. Unless someone is into politics like some are into sports they are only getting a vague impression of the parties and leaders. They don't want to discuss politics outside of election periods and even then only in passing or only with people who agree with them.
Examples of being politically tone deaf, dissing Keystone in the states, writing a letter to the soccer federation instead of instantly condemning the hijab ban. Raising the topic of the Sherbrooke Declaration in Quebec. Pushing Energy East before it even had a name.
Trudeau was politically tone deaf when he supported C 51. He failed to read the public right on that. The NDP stalled a couple of weeks allowing opposition to build then grabbed the opportunity to oppose it strongly as public sentiment turned. That was politically astute even if it didn't help them long term. Even Debater deserted the Liberals over it. I do believe it contributed to rising NDP popularity at the time.
The incident with REB showed poor judgement but didn't hurt Trudeau not only because the NDP and the Conservatives over-played their hands, but also because Trudeau made repeated abject apologies for elbowing REB. His political instincts saved him.
It's politically tone-deaf to mock Trudeau for selfies or complain about his family. People are lapping it up and jump to his defence over weak petty attacks. People are not going to agree that he is shallow while The Economist and the IMF are singing his praises and Obama is beaming at him.
By all of that I don't mean that political parties should just follow whatever the public wants. They just need to pick their battles wisely and know when to stay silent and when and how to speak up and know what their goal is.
Non-activist types are driven by looking after their kids and going about the business of earning money to meet their responsibilities. In two-income families evenings are dominated by kids and housework. The kids go to bed and Mom and Dad finally get to plop down and watch some TV to relax before bed, or maybe surf a bit, that's if the kids don't have activities. Some have gardens or hobbies or workout. Weekends are a chance to catch up or to chill. What difference does it make if you follow the news if you aren't going to act on it? Might as well wait until the next election and consider the limited choices. The only pay attention to whatever is likely to become water cooler talk in their circle be it politics or Game of Thrones or something that will affect them directly. They are not stupid people. They are just smart about other things. Talking down to them or droning on about some subject that feels distant to them turns them off. If they know, or can guess, which political party you support they will assume whatever you say is tainted by partisanship.
Disclaimer: That's all just my opinion of course. I am not claiming any superpowers or any special knowledge.
Over and out for tonight.
Strange how in a thread on Brexit the NDP gets slammed. Now that is thread drift on a tectonic scale.
I was wondering if the British are going to have a new vote for the national bird. The European Robin won just a couple of years ago.
...Politically tone deaf means not understanding what will and won't play well with voters...
So if your party has a policy that doesn't sit well with voters, then the party leader shouldn't bring it up during an election?
'Politically tone deaf' is a phrase that essentially has no meaning. It's a phrase that's used to criticise a politician, without actually saying what it is you're criticising.
It's akin to the calling what a politician says a 'gaffe'. Another meaningless statement. One person's 'gaffe' is another persons 'home truth', just like one person's 'politically tone deaf' is another persons 'telling it like it is'.
...Non-activist types are driven by looking after their kids and going about the business of earning money to meet their responsibilities. In two-income families evenings are dominated by kids and housework. The kids go to bed and Mom and Dad finally get to plop down and watch some TV to relax before bed, or maybe surf a bit, that's if the kids don't have activities. Some have gardens or hobbies or workout. Weekends are a chance to catch up or to chill...
And by extension, activists are people who
Are not driven by looking after their kids
Don't go about the business of earning money to meet their responsibilites
Don't have their evening dominated by kids and housework
Don't have gardens or hobbies, and don't work out
Don't use their weekends to to catch up or to chill (which makes sense because they don't have weekends because they don't spend their time working to earn a living).
Here's a great picture of the non-activist family sitting down for their evening meal:
The world was a lot nicer place when the non-activists were in control...
@ Orange Crushed
Look upthread. Yob is not a class insult. It is 19th century, "boy" turned backwards, and basically means antisocial thug. There are plenty of rich yobs.
Yahoo is their word too, and it is even older. Jonathan Swift made that one up for Gulliver's Travels.
and @ Rev
Politically tone deaf does have a meaning. But you are right about having to back it up with what you are refering to.
...and @ RevPolitically tone deaf does have a meaning. But you are right about having to back it up with what you are refering to.
Yeah, it means 'I don't like this politician'. That's all that it means.
Because I can't think of quite as good an example in Brexit, I'll offer this:
Mulcair was politically tone deaf in the last election when he made his campaign pledge regarding a balanced budget. It wasn't going to win him any votes from those who traditionally favour that policy. And it displayed a shocking ignorance (the tone-deaf part, and why it is actually a useful term when it is used to describe something) of what was needed to turn Harper's cutbacks around.
Who reaped the benefit of that tone-deafness? The guy who promised to run a deficit.
/drift
I could say that those who see a progressive victory in the Brexit result are politically tone deaf, and I don't dislike them at all. I am sympathetic to their concerns. I just think that in this case they seem to not recognize the forces which are in play here.
Re: "tone deaf" as a critique
just like one person's 'politically tone deaf' is another persons 'telling it like it is'.
Yeah, it means 'I don't like this politician'. That's all that it means.
Because I can't think of quite as good an example in Brexit...
I think I agree with post #674 and 676. There's not much more meaning to it than that. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. Etc. I suspect the reason you can't think of an example in Brexit is because you don't have strong enough feelings of animosity toward any of the players there to slap them with the "tone deaf" label. Obviously Corbyn's competitors have been labelling that the loss of some of Labour's votes (1/3, apparently, for Leave, and 2/3 went to Remain) to Leave as a sign of a tone deaf or weak muddled campaign upon Corbyn (IE, they should not have lost 1/3 to Leave), whereas Corbyn's supporters feel he was "telling it like it is" (IE, that it's not cut and dry and there are issues with the EU, but that Remain should be supported). Would a more enthusiastic campaign from an unabashed supporter of Remain leading Labour have made a difference in getting greater numbers of Labour supporters to vote Remain? Or would this have been seen as unrealistic and increased cynism and caused even more Labour supporters to have voted Leave? It's something that will never be known. But as for the opinion of whether Corbyn's campaign for Remain was "tone-deaf" or "telling it like it is", it depends upon whom you ask, and nothing more, in my opinion.
... except that I did, at #678, mark_alfred.
I don't dislike people who voted against Brexit because of progressive opposition to the E.U. I just think they aren't seeing something which shoudl be obvious.
I agree with you that its use can be subjective; but it actually does mean something more than "I disagree or I don't like".
Actually this piqued my interest so I did a bit of reading, and there are differences of opinion about whether it means one who is incapable of grasping a concept that should be clear, or merely someone who does not in the moment, but presumably could if it was explained. Another aspect of "tone deafness" is that it is something that very public and embarrassing, and I'd say there were enough warnings before the vote (I posted two editorials to that effect) that this is also true.
Re: #680
About #678, I think applying it to people's interpretation of a result after the fact is a diversion from applying the critique of tone deaf to politicians who ran a failed campaign. But, the sentiment of #678 regarding the public's perception of Brexit could be applied to how Remain ran the campaign in a few ways. 1.) Even though it was true that large financial repercussions were going to be an issue in the case of a Leave win, the public was not ready to hear this and it showed a tone-deafness to the people's sentiments (IE, they reacted against this fear-mongering with a larger Leave vote); or conversersely, 2.) Corbyn's lack of decisive warnings on the issue of economic repercussions led to a larger loss of Labour voters to the Leave side; or conversely, 3.) the initial repercussions that the UK is experiencing now will be short lived and in fact this opens the door to establishing a better more sovereign controlled relationship by the UK to the rest of Europe and someone with the integrity and honesty of Corbyn is the leader we need for this transition; or, conversely, 4.) the economic scare tactics that Remain employed overlooked the selling of the benefits of immigration with Remain and led to some mistakenly idealizing Leave on progressive terms while overlooking some deeper underlying issues.... well, you can simply go on with this forever. But just saying "tone deaf" as a critique is saying nothing, in my opinion.
ETA:
and I'd say there were enough warnings before the vote (I posted two editorials to that effect) that this is also true.
Where are these? I'd like to see them.
Editorials by Paul Mason and BIlly Bragg, upthread.
Both sympathetic to the progressive cause. Both pointing out that a leave vote at this point would do nothing to forward it.
And whether you have an opinion to the contrary, the term has a definite meaning.
Here's basic metaphorical tone-deafness. Obviously political is a bit more specific:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/177444/whats-the-metaphorical...
Want another one?
"All Lives Matter" is a perfect example of tone deafness.
I think that to really unpack "politically tone-deaf" we need to concretize what the specific "tone" was/is that someone is apparently deaf to.
A "centrist" might be described as politically tone-deaf by both the right and the left. By the right for being blissfully unaware of how badly the electorate wants lower taxes, and by the left for not understanding the need for more social spending.
I don't think the term just refers to "someone I don't like" so much as "someone who doesn't value/understand/agree with the things I do", or by extension, "someone who doesn't value/understand/agree with the things that I believe the majority of the electorate values, understands or agrees with".
I'm getting old I guess. I remember when us unruly Canadians rejected the sage advice of all our politicians and nixed the Charlottetown Accord. I was told that if I voted No it would be a rejection of unity with Quebec. Like a large majority of BC'ers I voted No and woke up to being on the winning side and lo and behold another province that voted NO just like BC was Quebec.
The NDP's support for the flawed Charlottetown Accord cost them dearly in the next election because its supporters in the West felt like the party just didn't understand their deep distrust of the Ottawa elite. The other big loser was the PC party on the right. The unfortunate fall out was the rise of the Reform Party with its populist message of constitutional change.
Ah, whatever. The topic came up due to a poster's obsession with past Canadian issues. Not at all relevant to the issue of Brexit, as rightly noted in post #672.
Well, in other Brexit news, the UK is about to get a new PM that nobody directly voted for, primarily because none of the people assumed to want the job seemed to want it. This is like Princess Eugenie of York taking the throne after the other seven heirs say "I feel I need to spend more time with my family".
And just in case nobody's getting enough irony in their diet, the new winner wasn't even a "Leave" supporter. Discuss.
I read of this, yet I can't even recall her name.
Theresa May. I just looked it up.
Well, in other Brexit news, the UK is about to get a new PM that nobody directly voted for, primarily because none of the people assumed to want the job seemed to want it. This is like Princess Eugenie of York taking the throne after the other seven heirs say "I feel I need to spend more time with my family".
And just in case nobody's getting enough irony in their diet, the new winner wasn't even a "Leave" supporter. Discuss.
I think that the Tory's polls tell them that their party is about to be ripped apart in the next election by the far right Leavers. Theresa May is the UK's Kim Campbell or Canada's first female Premier BC's Rita Johnston. Like those two she is destined to be a trivia question in a pub quiz in a decade from now.
But if their polls show strong support for the Leavers, why wouldn't Johnson have stayed in? Apparently Gove also joining the race influenced his dropping out, but I don't understand why it would. And why did Gove leave the race? I gotta say, it's difficult to follow the goings on in UK politics.
But if their polls show strong support for the Leavers, why wouldn't Johnson have stayed in? Apparently Gove also joining the race influenced his dropping out, but I don't understand why it would. And why did Gove leave the race? I gotta say, it's difficult to follow the goings on in UK politics.
Because the party is deeply split it is the upcoming split and the inevitable rise of another right wing party that I am postulating. Like the rise of the Reform when Mulroney collapsed and the rise of the BC Liberals when the Socreds lost power.
I think Gove left because he finished third in a vote of the Conservative caucus. He was simply eliminated by the prescribed process.
For the British left to succeed, the UK must leave the European Union
For the British right too, it would seem. British mass surveillance legislation ruled excessive by EU.
http://boingboing.net/2016/07/20/brexit-is-a-victory-for-mass-s.html?utm...
What the British really think of Brexit -
Hard Brexit: Only if it's free:
See post for Sept. 28, 2016
Amartya Sen: 'Referendums are like opinion polls. Sometimes they're very wrong.':
https://www.theguardian.com//books/2017/jan/22/amartya-sen-brexit-trump-...
Brexit's effect on immigration to Britain will be small:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/10/brexit-will-cause-vanish...
Finally some common sense
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sadiq-khan-second-brexit-r...
Jeremy Corbyn risks reopening Labour’s Brexit wounds by hailing the 'positives' from leaving EU
Labour leader also plays down idea of the party offering a further referendum on any Brexit deal - hour after Sadiq Khan suggested it could
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-brexi...
Corbyn is close to done as Leader of the Labour Party and perhaps if that happened Brexit would be reversed.
Corbyn, Palestinians and Brexit
http://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/columnists/gwynne-dyer-corbyn-palesti...
![http://i64.tinypic.com/2z6i9fc.jpg[/IMG]](http://i64.tinypic.com/2z6i9fc.jpg[/IMG]){kind=link}