EU referendum are you in or out

[phattslagg]

Brexit isn’t Labour’s policy. It’s the inevitable result of the most ill-advised vote that has ever been put the British people. Now, slightly more than half the electorate expects Parliament to deliver on the result they voted for, and a significant number of those who didn’t vote for it also expect the result to be respected.

The cat cannot be put back in the bag, and the only political parties that seem to think it can be are the ones that are small enough to make themselves a one-issue party.

[Harlequin]

The cat cannot be put back in the bag, and the only political parties that seem to think it can be are the ones that are small enough to make themselves a one-issue party.

I have never considered the LibDems to be a one-issue party.

Is this a possibility?

General election a strong prospect as Theresa May’s Brexit deal defeated for third time

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-election-strong-prospect-theresa-181000280.html

I think it is but ...

Furious Tory MPs tell May: we’ll block snap Brexit election

[phattslagg]

I have never considered the LibDems to be a one-issue party.

They pretty much are now, though. And they can afford to be because their chances of electoral gains are all but zero without riding the Remain train.

[zip accident]

I have never considered the LibDems to be a one-issue party.

They pretty much are now, though. And they can afford to be because their chances of electoral gains are all but zero without riding the Remain train.

The Greens are also pro remain. Half the country is a pretty big voting bloc.

[KlaxonCow]

I think I'm pretty much a "centrist" (so despised by basically everyone, it does seem to be a swear word here and other left leaning forums) so I like the idea of a party that can learn to compromise instead of taking far-left and far-right positions and yelling at each other as everyone does nowadays.

Well, you'll have no issues from me, as I'm a classical liberal myself (small "L").

I feel the Marxist "left / right" division is a false dichotomy, honestly, and what matters to me is the "up / down" axis - which was the original pre-Marx "left / right" axis of the French court - of which I'm very firmly towards the liberal (the old-school "original left", you could say).

My view is that the principle of maximising liberty for all has historically always been to the betterment of the world, whereas I struggle to think of any examples where authoritarianism did any lasting good. And I'm distrustful of both the left and the right from the perspective that when either dominates, they drift towards authoritarianism.

For me, "society" is the plural of "the individual" and "the individual" is the singular of "society", so I just can't see the Marxist "left / right" as anything but a false dichotomy. A category error. You can't favour one over the other when they are, in fact, one and the same thing, just viewed at different levels of abstraction.

If you harm society for the sake of "the individual", then you're not actually ultimately doing that individual any favours - no man is an island and we all depend on the skills and labour of others to enrich our own lives - and if you harm the individual "for the greater good" of society then you're not actually ultimately doing society any favours - because "society" is "the individual", collectively so.

It's like chopping your fingers off "to liberate the fingers from the tyranny of the hand", or using a hammer (and maybe a sickle) to mangle and butcher your fingers - because how dare the thumb be opposable! And we need to cut that arrogant longer middle finger down to size! - where, ultimately, neither action is going to help either the overall hand nor the individual fingers. Because - newsflash! - your hand is your fingers, collectively.

Basically, Marx's fundamental mistake is that, right out of the gate, he offers us a blatant contradiction: "all men are equal" but, also, "there's two types of people and they must wage eternal war against each other".

As a humanist, I agree with the first "all men are equal" and this mandates that the second must be "there's only one type of person and, thus, the only war we should wage is against the faults in our nature". The war is necessarily internal, as there is no "external" when we're all - factually so - in the exact same group of "frightened naked apes on a spinning mud-and-rock ball in a vast ocean of nothingness".

I mean, you can see the problem with Marxism if you just imagine that the Proletariat actually won. So the workers of the world unite and own "the means of production". But, at this point, doesn't that make them self-employed? As they utilise "the means of production" to make a living, what if they do extremely well and become rich? If they improve "the means of production" or innovate new "means of production" - new ways to make a living - are they not being entrepreneurial? Rich, self-employed, entrepreneurs?

You get the gist. The Proletariat becomes the new Bourgeoisie. "The King is dead, long live the King!".

It's not about beating the other guy. It's about beating the demons within us. Our fears and faults - individually and collectively.

The one point where I actually agree with religion - the internal struggle of self-improvement is how we make a better world. Education, striving to be the better man, human progress, scientific progress, etc. or even just learning to have the patience not to jump to conclusions and instantly condemn others for a badly phrased tweet.

This is probably exactly why religion riles me so - as it's otherwise on the right track, but offers atrociously bad advice on the subject.

[Cloudane]

Which of Labour’s policies are too far left for you to support?

Personally, none of them. Labour even under Corbyn is still pretty "center-left" which is about where I stand. I just acknowledge that in a world where opinions differ from mine, sometimes we need to compromise and aim for gradual/incremental progression (whereas once people stray towards the extremes they're more inclined to try and get their way through sheer bloody-mindedness and I think this is where our current tribalism problems stem from)

I feel the Marxist "left / right" division is a false dichotomy, honestly, and what matters to me is the "up / down" axis - which was the original pre-Marx "left / right" axis of the French court - of which I'm very firmly towards the liberal (the old-school "original left", you could say).

Yeah that's similar to how I see things, I'm a bit to the left of centre on the economic left/right scale but not far to the left of it - i.e. allow for some variation in income, competition, let some people be more wealthy than others which I see as human nature... but publicly fund healthcare, put a bit of a 'cap' on wealth by taxing the super rich, offer welfare to those with a genuine need, don't ask someone who can't speak or move to prove that they're disabled etc. Whereas on the authoritarianism/libertarianism (up/down) scale, I'm no anarchist but a fair way down/libertarian and feel more strongly on that axis.

I share your views of authoritarianism, which is what worries me about "the left" these days as I think it's drifting in that direction (though it's hard to define as the modern left is intersectional and about a lot more than economics i.e. emphasis on identity etc). I notice that the online left in particular seem to lean more strongly on the censorship side at the moment, to the point that free speech (or "freeze peach!!" as they like to sneer) is seen as some sort of far-right dogwhistle and purely about encouraging the right to say racist/sexist/homophobic things. I find it quite worrying that free speech seems to be predominantly a right wing / "alt right" issue these days.

The one point where I actually agree with religion - the internal struggle of self-improvement is how we make a better world. Education, striving to be the better man, human progress, scientific progress, etc. or even just learning to have the patience not to jump to conclusions and instantly condemn others for a badly phrased tweet.

This is probably exactly why religion riles me so - as it's otherwise on the right track, but offers atrociously bad advice on the subject.

If it was followed properly, in all honesty I think I'd see Christianity (not the original "stone the gays" god, the modern "be kind to others" one) as a very respectable set of guidelines.... kind of ironic I suppose as religion when you think about it is like the ultimate form of authoritarianism. It's just that rather than being imposed by other humans, it's set by a probably nonexistent higher entity and down to the human to have self-responsibility based on their faith. Values like giving to those in need, having the capacity for forgiveness towards those who have wronged you etc, it's mostly good stuff. Sadly, like any religion, it's often weaponised instead and often goes fully against what it's supposed to be saying. Or to put it in a modern way, "Jesus would facepalm".

Good post IMO...

[Dio]

I find it quite worrying that free speech seems to be predominantly a right wing / "alt right" issue these days.

Because the most obvious abuse of it currently is some numpties claiming the free speech allows them to describe people of a different skin colour in whatever horrible language they see fit.

[Deckard]

My favourite odd turn of phrase at the mo is the social media classic "speaking my own truth" - what, rather than the lies you normally tell ? I still find it amazing after being in Cornwall for the last three years how often I hear the N word. Not great although I think the influx of students here in Falmouth is helping.

[Rhythm]

I find it quite worrying that free speech seems to be predominantly a right wing / "alt right" issue these days.

Because the most obvious abuse of it currently is some numpties claiming the free speech allows them to describe people of a different skin colour in whatever horrible language they see fit.

Putting it super-simplistically, isn't that one of the core tenets of Right vs Left? "Personal freedom and individual liberty by any means possible" vs "joined effort, greater state control/regulation/taxation"? I know right wing politics is often a lot more embroiled with legal challenges. Again, gross generalisation but they tend to try to push boundaries and get their goals through via dodgy routes.

[Dio]

Very, very simplistically.

Both sides have laid claim to the true spirit of libertarianism: the left because they allow people to behave more freely socially (social libertarianism, supporting contraception, gay marriage etc.) while the right's claim is largely based on capitalist economic liberty (freedom to do what you want with your money). Both sides tend to believe the other side are overly authoritarian: left wingers hate the restriction of social freedoms while right wingers hate the restriction on using money to buy whatever you like.

Both claim to be the true party of equality of opportunity, and both can construct an argument that has a point.

There are 'true libertarians' who believe in both those freedoms, and there's an argument that both centre-left and centre-right have tried to occupy this space.

[Rhythm]

George Osborne just did a pitch-perfect editor's response to someone asking "why haven't MPs just gotten on with their jobs and delivered Brexit?" in the Evening Standard:

Dear Chris

I don’t know why you’re astounded. The MPs have been unable to come up with a successful exit plan from the EU because there isn’t one.

We can refuse to acknowledge the trade-offs between sovereignty, prosperity and security — and then blame the politicians for failing to deliver an impossible task. Or we can, as a country, face the truth that all forms of Brexit make Britain poorer, less secure and less influential. If that’s the price the majority of the public is willing to pay then, fine, we’re a democracy. It looks like they’ll soon get a chance to have their say in an election or referendum.

George

[Cloudane]

Because the most obvious abuse of it currently is some numpties claiming the free speech allows them to describe people of a different skin colour in whatever horrible language they see fit.

Yeah it is a horrible abuse of free speech, but no reason to turn against it, IMO

[gilesgoat]

Because the most obvious abuse of it currently is some numpties claiming the free speech allows them to describe people of a different skin colour in whatever horrible language they see fit.

Yeah it is a horrible abuse of free speech, but no reason to turn against it, IMO

There's a difference between "Freedom" and "consequences".

You can have the freedom to do anything you want, this is why God Almighty is NOT burning you to a crisp with lightnings coming from the sky when you do crap stuff

So yes you can call people as you like, it does not mean there won't be any consequences for what you said.

If we have some "human established conventions" that say "you should not say things that could offend others" that's another thing, again, you like anyone else has the freedom to break this rule, it does not mean "nothing should happen if you do".

It's kind interesting it's quite hard to define precisely what "freedom" is/should be but it's quite easy to define what isn't.

Actually the moment I say "you can't do that" that's imposing a limitation on the freedom of doing things.

Anyway "absolute freedom" ultimately means also "you have to deal with all that comes with it" sometime restriction of freedom in place removes you in part of the burden of things you'd have to deal with.

[Dio]

But that breaks down in the internet age, right? The internet has enabled us to easily form clusters of like-minded individuals. That has helped to more easily enable views that were once rightly marginalised by society to be exposed to the oxygen of publicity. The society in which they move is no longer 'judging' them harshly for expressing indefensible views - indeed, exactly the opposite, it is rewarding it.

It's similar to the way that my parents reasonably laissez-faire approach is not workable with my children. When I was 6, there were three TV channels and two hours a day of kids stuff and the only home computer game was a Grandstand pong box. There was no choice but to go outside and play, read, build lego, "something less boring instead" so my parents didn't have to include rules that I couldn't watch TV or play games all day.

Changes in society may require changing the rules.

[Cloudane]

Totally agree that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

But the internet and its issues, how do you get around that? Yes you can ban the wrong things being said on Twitter or Reddit or whatever which is the way things are going and certainly can as they're privately owned services (at great resistance from those sites, but often with 'encouragement' in the form of "you're making a profit while bad things being said on your platform"), but then they just move to echo chambers were "Free Speech" is indeed a dog whistle to the far-right like Gab or 8chan, and radicalise. So raid and shut down Gab and 8chan you say, ok, if successful they get driven underground to the darknet. They need to be engaged with, not driven further and further underground! We need to hear each other, us hearing the crap they're saying and us saying "no that's bloody awful racist nonsense, get a hold of yourself"

Problem then is though, much of 'web 2.0' is geared around 'likes', 'upvotes' and other approval mechanisms and people don't talk to "the others" unless it's to exchange insults, they'd rather stick to those clusters and get more likes and upvotes. And just to add even more confusion to it, you have bots adding said likes and upvotes too...

I don't really know the answer, I just don't think it's a problem that can be resolved with "add more censorship and shut more stuff down"