I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style. — Punshhh

On the contrary. I saw it partly as saying that he thinks he can be as transformative a leader as Blair. So in that respect it was a compliment - albeit a pretty ego-driven one..

No, I don't think so. Left, sure, but not hard. — unenlightened

Depends how you define 'hard left'. I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does? Surely the SWP aren't big enough to reserve the term for them alone.

As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had. — Punshhh

I'd choose Kenneth Clarke - or maybe Healey? But I wouldn't vote against MH..

It's a shame that I too, as a disillusioned Remainer am selfishly thinking: 'Oh well, I won't be worse off - my money is global investments (not that that seems to be helping much at the moment!), when the majority who think they have won will almost certainly suffer for it. I sometimes wonder if one-man-one-vote democracy is really the best way. But in the end, I suspect however the 'system' is set up the simple will always be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous clever.

They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased. — unenlightened

'They' who the Labour MPs and activists talked to on the doorsteps and who said they were voting Tory or Brexit Party for the first time ever..

Yes the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left, not the millions of lifelong voters up north and is out of touch. For example the membership is predominently Remain, well out of kilter with the balance of Labour voters generally.

It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them. — Punshhh

I think that's too sophisticated. The reasons, besides Brexit, for Labour's loss of northern working-class voters I have heard from Labour MPs and voters alike are:

• They disliked Corbyn as a leader, also seeing him as a possible security risk and not a good ambassador for the UK internationally.
• They did not believe Labour's huge spending promises could ever be paid for.

What's galling is the huge arrogance of the left-wing leadership in refusing to accept this. They are blaming solely Brexit; as ever remaining convinced their socialist idealism is right, and the world just has to be coached in realising it. It's just like the way Corbyn refuses to even address the issue of anti-semitism beyond bland restatements of his anti-racist credentials. The likes of Margaret Hodge, Straw, Mandelson are crying out for the party to change and remove this Momentum clique, but will it? I think a new Blair figure needs to appear to catalise the change first..

I can have a look later, but I thought people think that a snap referendum would be 52/48 the other way. Media commentators have been saying this for over a year. Also why are the brexiters so vehemently against it and have been saying that the people who were making the case for a confirmatory vote, where doing it to stop Brexit. Surely they wanted more democracy now that we are better informed. — Punshhh

The speculation of commentators is not hard evidence. Given that all the forecasts were for the 1st ref to vote Remain, and at the last minute Leave won, a 52/48 forecast would presage an exact rerun.

Brexiteers are scared they might lose, not convinced they would. They also see a 2nd ref as an affront to democracy, which, despite being a Remainer, I have to agree with..

Anyway, as Heseltine admitted today, that battle is lost.. :fear: Time to move on.

If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum. — Punshhh

I disagree. Show me some evidence..

That's not a problem, that's a feature. Of course I define what is 'rational', as does everyone else. — SophistiCat

So you see 'rational' as a subjective term. In that case it's meaningless to use it. You might as well say 'thinking the same way as I do' instead. Using 'rational' infers to me that you think there is a higher and objective logic behind your argument, one you believe all sensible people should agree with - rather than just your viewpoint. And any refutation of your argument would thus be 'irrational'..

You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.) — SophistiCat

The problem with your argument is that you define what is 'rational'. I suspect that decisions are not made the same way by all people - there is no universal 'rationality' which governs them - or more importantly, that should govern them. ..

I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them. — Benkei

Agreed. I think some of us fail to understand the rationale by which less intelligent people make decisions.. What one person calls self-interest another calls stupidity.

It is important not to forget that the master stroke of Johnson's advisors is to conflate Brexit with domestic issues and the threat of a socialist government. If we had had a second referendum on leaving the EU, we would have voted remain, this is widely known and is the reason why brexiters were vehemently against a second referendum. — Punshhh

I don't accept that a 2nd referendum would have supported Remain. In the face of a big swing away from the main ref supporting party, Labour, it seems absurd to maintain that. Pollsters like Sir John Curtis repeatedly say that the Leave/Remain split remains near 50/50. That being so, there is clearly no mandate to revisit the original decision anyway.

The 'threat of a socialist govt' did not strike me as the Tories' primary focus. The fact that Labour's sums and Corbyn himself were mistrusted by voters is clear from the doorstep responses many Labour activists and MPs reported. People are not so stupid as to believe Corbyn's trumpeting of hope over the reality of the costs of his plans. It was naiive of Labour to expect they would fall for this emotive plea. Had they spent more time explaining how their promises could be paid for maybe more voters would have stuck by them.

As an aside I noticed how often journalists on TV did not manage to get any senior Tories to interview about policy detail along with those of other parties. Has the (winning) campaign now gone wholly online? This has been claimed. If so the future of informed decision making is bleak.

The campaign lessened my conviction in my own forecast, but a big Tory win was what I said as soon as the Brexit deal was signed. I wish I'd been wrong, but people really are as dumbly predictable as I thought..

Boris won the alpha male vote. Cue break-up of UK. — Baden

I have to say I agree. Worse for Labour than 1983 with Michael Foot. SNP surging too. John Macdonnell looks crushed talking to Andrew Neil.

Exit poll says Tory majority of 80+. Death of Corbynism...

Punshhh — Punshhh

Well good luck with the polling station! I think we could be in for some surprises as the results come in. I heard today that 30% of people may vote tactically..

Yes, I like to get involved on social media as I am interested in current developments in politics.
The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's. So what is happening is the Tory's bluster and use double speak, along with crowding out the opposition by talking over others, or refusing to stop talking in a short limited time slot. The problem with this is that their news broadcasts are dominated by lines and slogans from the Tory's which are opportunist, disingenuous, hollow promises, duplicituos etc.. as though it is the accepted truth. There is a lack of equivalence in what messages are shown, or to what degree they are true representations of policy. So basically they are being played by the bully in the room. — Punshhh

I'd say if you're interested in politics, ignore social media. News-wise it's basically a free-for-all cesspit. It's pointless to complain about all the lies. I forecast that it will be widely ignored in a few years.

It sounds like you're blaming the BBC for the way the Tories use their air-time, which I don't see as fair. If the half-truths, bluster and refusing to shut up of populism are more effective then the opposition should and will follow suit. Nevertheless, I am often annoyed by the way journalists on Newsnight constantly probe for a weakness in whomever they interview. Getting a headline is clearly more important to them than enlightening us viewers. However they do have a very hard job. These days politicians are trained to focus on their message and ignore questions which try to open up topics from more informative angles. They will all bluster and drown out counter-views if given the chance. I think Michal Hussein on Today is the best and most ruthless at stopping interviewees wittering on and talking over her questions.

Personally I like my news advert-free.. I can't say I'd noticed any anti-socialist bias in the BBC. It's regularly criticised by the Tory right for being against them, so if the Labour left says the same that's probably a sign both are a little too paranoid..

The degree of social media deception, has reached new heights now. — Punshhh

It's well past time that people realised they can't trust anything they receive on social media. Hence I ignore it. A news story is no more valid than its source. (I would have suggested trusting the BBC and not Sky, but you seem to disagree!)

I like the cartoon. Is that why you're called 'Punch' - almost..

I think there are a large number of undecided voters who will still be making up their minds. There is an army of momentum canvassers going around in marginal seats. A friend of mine is out every day in Norwich North and North Norfolk. Whether it's working is difficult to know.

Do you get lots of adds and targeted posts on Facebook, or other social media? I get about 30 a day, targeted for Labour, or tactical voting sites. I suspect that other people are getting entirely different messages. — Punshhh

Thee has been much talk of the Red wall - Labour strongholds in the north with a pro-leave ref result, and whether Labour voters can 'hold their noses' and lend the Tories their votes. From what I've heard on TV quite a few will, and I doubt Momentum's assurances will make much difference to them. The Lib Dems do seem to be suffering a bit from the cancel article 51 policy - no surprise to me, and I'm sure some staunch 'democrats' have already defected to Labour. Then, also, in safe Toryland like St Albans with a large affluent Remain community, the Lib Dems apparently have a good chance. My sister is thinking of lending her Labour vote to the Lib Dems. It's possible a late shift could shake things up - like in the referendum itself. There is certainly more scope for tactical voting than ever before.

I keep my Facebook details and links to other sites to a minimum, so get very few adverts and
forwarded posts.

The debt you mention does not factor in the growth of the real economy intended by Labour, which as I have pointed out is quite disfunctional at the moment. Also it may be appropriate to raise taxes for the good of the country. — Punshhh

Extra economy growth will be required to pay off all that extra debt.. Not being an economist I can't quantify the details, but forecasters have thrown doubt on both Tory and Labour sums..

I do agree with tax raises to offset growing inequality. I'd raise the National Insurance Ceiling. No-one ever seems to admit that NI is just another sort of income tax these days. Although Boris is to raise the lower limit I think, and not before time.

But generally the election campaigning energy seems all used up and we're just drifting towards polling day. I think because the main parties have concentrated on their key messages everyone's getting bored with them..

The wealth sitting in the inflated house values is a form of congestion, like our roads, or like being obese. It ceases to be a dynamic aspect of a healthy real economy, but starts to become one of the problems holding it back. And while we continue to fail to address the lack of house building which has caused it, it is only going to get worse. — Punshhh

I agree of course, the cause of the property jam is lack of new affordable housing, and I'm all for spending on new council housing. The fact that people's houses are worth much more than 20 years ago makes housing unaffordable to the young I agree. But I don't see your point that the wealth in housing is thus tied up and so not available to the 'real' economy any more than it was in the past. A lot of the added wealth is paper-wealth - ie simply extra value added to assets already owned. It's not as if people have had to make themselves penniless to afford their homes so they can't afford anything else. If we had a property price fall and serious problems with negative equity, preventing those with large mortgages from selling, then yes, that asset value would be trapped. But we don't, so it isn't.

I agree that nationalised provision can become inefficient, but that is only really a management issue and is free of those capitalist issues. — Punshhh

The issue with public ownership is as much an inevitable lack of funding when times are hard as inefficiency. The NHS is always underfunded, as were the railways before privatistion. I'm not advocating privatisation of either, but I think expecting nationalisation to improve them economically is wishful thinking.

But this along with the other capital investment proposed by the Labour Party, is not funded from tax provision, but rather by issuing government bonds, a one off capital investment. — Punshhh

This is just the govt borrowing money on the markets, and having to repay interest to bond holders for however many years the bonds last. And then, finally, the capital. It increases the national debt - I think by £100 billion per year under Corbyn's plan. So that's over 25% extra in debt and debt repayment costs in 5 years.

Countries with highest debt to GDP ratios

The higher the UK's debt and debt-to-GDP ratio, the lower it will be rated by agencies, and the more interest the bond holders will want for their UK investments. It's already 88% (see graph above). After 5 years of Labour it would be around 110%. We'd almost be up there with basket cases like Italy and Portugal.. And if all the borrowed money is spent on infrastructure and extra public servants how does it expand the economy by enough to repay the loans?

Again I don't dispute this, but what I want to focus on is where money is taken out of the real economy for a period of time. For example, a lot of money goes into property, which then sits there for a long time, rather than being spent on products and services provided by small businesses, or in the local economy. — Punshhh

I think this is a bit of a myth. For every rich house-buyer who sits on it as an investment, there's a newly rich seller. He may then spend his newly aquired money locally.. A house as an investment is no different to any other investment - the investor spends his cash to buy it. I think the problem is if such properties are left unoccupied, then they are effectively being taken out of the housing stock, but aside from a few millionaires' pads owned by russian oligarchs in London, is this is a big problem?

What is being proposed is a larger Social Democratic State like the Northern European countries. — Punshhh

What does this mean? For all the talk of nationalising rail, mail, power, broadband etc, whose profits will be added to govt coffers and redistributed, where does the extra money come from? Higher taxation for the rich will produce some cash, but that's more redistribution.. Any extra has to come from borrowing or better productivity. Simply using tax revenue to fund large inefficient public monopolies has never produced wealth on the past and there' s no reason why it will in the future. What it probably will produce is inflation..

An interesting development in the NATO summit, was the row between France and the US over clawing taxes off the large internet corporations. France is going to impose 3% and in return the US is threatening 100% tariffs on key French exports. The UK will get mired in this row from a far weaker position when begging for a US trade deal. — Punshhh

Absolutely. I'm surprised the EU doesnt act as a whole to apply these taxes. It would thus be strong enough for Trump to think twice. The UK - whose exports to the US are twice theirs to us, will be a sitting duck for this kind of pressure. Scotch whisky I think was mentioned by Trump..

The wealthy person would probably put it in a savings account, or if they are clued up, some kind of investment designed to avoid capital gains tax and then forget about it. This person wouldn't spend any more than they were going to before they received the money, as they already have all the money they need for day to day living costs. Like any of our 150 billionaires for example. — Punshhh

I suggest you talk to your friends and ask them what'd they'd do if their salaries suddenly doubled. I think they'd be talking about new cars, houses, buy-to-let investment, long-haul holidays, maybe even private schools; before they got around to offshoring any of their extra money. Who do you think keeps luxury brands afloat. Yes the ultra-rich may go that way, but I think only a small proportion of their income would go to tax havens, most of their wealth will be in property and shares. Not that I've any evidence - but then who has, either way?

I also think when the average/poorer person spends their gift money from MacDonnell on everyday products and services, a proportion of that money ends up in the hands of your rich 5%, because they own all the companies and take profits, dividends etc. How do you think they got rich? So Labour's attempted wealth-redistribution is not as easy as it seems. The only way to avoid this trickle-up effect is communism..

On a more Brexitey note I see the Brexit Party MEPs are deserting Farage's sinking ship - polling now 2-3%. He explains: " well, they're ex-Tories so it's not surprising." How many of his crew aren't ex-Tories? As I guessed, the Tories are mopping up the Leave vote..

Also the debt has increased over the last decade. — Punshhh

But by how much? If the debt increases at less that RPI it effectively decreases. Bringing down the deficit - and hence the annual increase, was as I understand it was part of the logic of austerity..

If you listen to John MacDonnell, he is claiming that by putting money into the pockets of ordinary people in the economy, it generates prosperity and growth in the real economy, resulting in a benefit to all. It is the opposite of the Tory capitalist ideology of capitalism generating wealth with a trickle down effect, which has been shown to be an illusion. In reality people of wealth and corporations siphon the wealth offshore and make those at the bottom more deprived, with greater inequality. — Punshhh

So putting money into the pockets of the poor aids growth but putting it into the rich's trousers doesn't? I think maybe you over-estimate the % of 'rich' money hidden overseas. Have you figures to back up your claim, and that of Macdonnell ? I think on the whole successful people want to spend their money, either on high-lifestyles or investments like property and businesses, both of which means it does trickle down.

Regarding the hope voters and protest voters. I know their hearts are in the right place, but they are mistaken, which is understandable due to the "vile" poison spread by the gutter press and nationalist populists, who have taken advantage of them. — Punshhh

Who are you to tell voters they are mistaken? Surely this high-handed attitude is one of the drivers of Brexit. I also don't think you can blame the media for brainwashing people so effectively. Given the preponderance of right-wing views among tabloids you'd expect 80% of their readers to vote Tory. That doesn't happen, so maybe they're not all as gullible as you suggest.

Yes, it is difficult to understand why millions of poor and deprived people are going to vote for Johnson. The poor voting to keep the rich in power and keep them poor. I watched a vox-pops documentary on Chanel 4 news yesterday, where they invited 10 people from a working class area of Birmingham who voted leave. They were all people who had voted Labour their whole lives (they were all around retirement age). They were saying they couldn't trust Corbyn, they don't believe his pledges to rebuild the public services etc, because they have swallowed the narrative that we all have to struggle to get by and there isn't any money available to put things right. The Tory austerity mindset. Johnson was a lovable rogue who couldn't put a foot wrong, he was going to give them leadership. All of them said getting out of the EU was more important than any other consideration. — Punshhh

You seem to be saying that there's no middle-ground between Corbyn's spend-spend-spend policies and the 'mean' Tories. It's not hard to understand why people don't trust Corbyn. They still recall the years of austerity necessitated by Labour spending from 2008-2010. Okay you can dispute the term 'necessitated', but people instinctively shrink from the country running up large debts again, and I've yet to hear Corbyn say how he will pay back all the billions he wants to borrow. A moderate Labour party might be doing better in the polls. (I always thought the wrong Milliband brother won the leadership contest back in 2010..)

I noticed one strand common among those interviewed in the Voxpop Guardian article. Namely hope. Voters voted for Brexit in part because they hope the change it brings will be beneficial. Okay they're probably wrong, but when you don't understand all the political chicanery and economic forecasts hope is a powerful motivator. Similarly with Johnson. 'He's a new face, so let's give him a try and hope', goes the 'logic'..

Trump: "I don't want to interfere in UK politics." .. "Boris Johnson would make a great leader."

It's hard to believe this guy is real and not out of The Simpsons.

"We're not interested in the NHS, you could hand it to us on a silver platter and we wouldn't be interested".

Trump. — Punshhh

:lol:

stop trying to make the world do what we want it to do, but rather listen and pay attention more, and then give the world what it needs from us. — Possibility

Surely we aren't doing that. We (ie. us discussing here - not mankind as a whole) are trying to find ways to let the world do what it wants, rather than assuming we have the right to alter it for our own short-term economic ends. What does the world 'need from us'? To be left alone?

And then we get into the whole issue of rights: ie. do we as the dominant species have the right to alter the eco-system if we want to (by design or by negligance). Or do other species have the right to their un-molested existance alongside us?

Surely a big part of the problem is over-population. ourworldindata.org
Would sticking to a ceiling of (say) 7 billion humans on earth keep the effects manageable? And if so, should we prioritise aiming for this? The forecasts of world food shortages over this century seem to be based on another 3 billion Africans being around by 2100..

So... who is everyone voting for? — Evil

I think, probably no-one. As an ex-Blairite (pre Iraq) I might go for Lib Dems, but I just don't think unilaterally revoking Brexit is a viable policy.. I'm also in a safe Tory seat.

It has to be said that there must be something wrong with a democracy where in the vast majority of seats it doesnt matter who you vote for..

It's odd that this question would be posted on a Philosophy forum. Whether human beings can stop--or slow--climate change seems to me to be a straightforwardly scientific or empirical question. — Jim Grossmann

This thread is under Politics & Current Affairs. Besides, the question I'm asking is not scientific or technical, it's more about will and vision. Are we as humans intellectually and morally equiped to deal with a problem whose effects take decades and whose costs are hard to forecast. We are very good at fire-fighting, but planning long-term is hard with our short-termist electoral systems. There has not been a problem like sudden global warming in the whole of human history and it seems to me our evolutionary journey as a species has left us ill-equiped to deal with it.

However, I wonder if all is not lost, because man's great ingenuity could yet mitigate the situation. As the climate chaos worsens there will be greater pressure to invest in carbon-capture schemes. If the danger (and the economic hit) becomes clear enough we approach a war situation - accepted by everyone, where it's 'all hands to the pumps'. Then maybe billionaires who waste their cash on pointless space tourism will start chasing kudos by building reflective satellites or carbon sequestration machines of some sort. The question is when this tipping point will be reached. It can't be before such imbeciles as Trump are recognised as unfit for office even by would-be supporters. Is that coming in 2020?

↪SophistiCat
What is it that I am denying, exactly? — Tzeentch

If it's the fact of man-made global warming, please do it elsewhere. For this thread I take it as a given that it is chiefly man's activities and their increased CO2 emissions which have caused the problem.

Punshhh — Punshhh

This looks a lot like scaremongering by Corbyn. The minutes were from preliminary meetings, during which the US delegates outlined the areas they'd be interested in discussing re a trade deal. Access to the NHS and drug patents were among them. However, that doesnt mean the govt side agreed with their priorities, or that they'd be willing to compromise on them when the real talks start. Johnson is categorically ruling out any deal on the NHS. If he goes back on this promise he'll be in trouble.. It would be hilarious if he got an EU trade deal but couldn't agree one with the US!

This site is quite informative:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/polls/general-election

If you click on 2019 UK Parliament swingometer you can play around with the %s of the parties and see how the result is affected. Ok, it's based on uniform swings, but fun to play with.

I see that just as the Chief Rabbi is urging Jews not to vote Labour, Heseltine is urging Tories to vote Lib Dem or for independent ex-Tories, and Blair is calling them both 'dangerous', although he'll still vote Labour. I'm surprised at that. I'd have thought the Socialist program would alienate him..

Oh also about the poll tracker, the BBC has the polltracker on their website, along with a list of all the constituencies with the share of the votes from the 2017 election. They frequently tell their viewers to go to the website and have a look. It's part of their drive to get their viewers to be more interactive. — Punshhh

I found this. But what I was looking for was some ranked listing of the marginals, with the percentage vote of each party, including the Lib Dems (and Ukip if it's from 2017).The listings of swing-seats I've seen only cater for close Tory-Labour marginals. I don't think much of a Labour/Tory swing is likely. It's the movement of votes to the big 2 parties from the 2 smaller ones which I think may be important. A big tactical Lib Dem to Labour swing could turn a relatively safe Tory seat to Labour, and the reverse could turn some safe Tory seats to Lib Dem.

Tells actually a situation that is very surprising! Nothing portrayed in the Media would make you connect the present to such polls. — ssu

I am amazed that TV news just doesnt report the polls any more. I don't know why this is. Maybe they have been wrong at predicting the outcome before, but so what?

I know these demographics may work the other way in different areas, but it illustrates how unpredictable it is if one is not analysing the constituencies in more detail. Also, there is evidence of a lot more floating voters on this occasion than usual, making it more unpredictable. And a large number of younger voters introduced to the system, due to record numbers registering to vote. — Punshhh

I agree that in this election more than most tactical voting will play a big part - on the Brexit issue above all. The pact between Libs/Greens/PC should make a small difference, but if Labour/Lib Dems vote for eachother to beat the Tories it could make a large difference. The Tories can only count on Brexit Party voters coming to their aid, and there are far less of them.

Interesting point made on BBC lunchtime news. Namely that the poll tracker graphs of Labour/Lib Dems and of Tories/Brexit Paty are exact mirror images of eachother. This demonstrates that the Remain/Leaver divide is entrenched and the only movement is between parties on the same side of it.

Guardian poll tracker

When all is being proposed is that they pay a little more tax, or pay the taxes they are avoiding paying. Oh, and it will bankrupt the country etc. With no thought for the poor. — Punshhh

Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..

I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with? — Punshhh

The Labour manifesto comes out shortly. I forecast they'll go into orbit re the spending plans. It'll be Gordon Brown all over again. This will be an open goal for the Tories who can say they are spending on what the public wants, but responsibly. Personally I don't believe the UK public will trust the huge socialist spending sums can be repaid. The one thing above all which was clear from the debate is that neither leader has any public trust. It's a great opportunity for the Lib Dems, if they can get some air time..

For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum". — Punshhh

I think they stuck to their lines deliberately. They were given little time to answer questions and so chose to ram their core messages home. This was ITV, don't forget. I watched the whole thing and I don't think I learned anything of policy.

I don't think Corbyn can survive the Johnson attack which should have been: 'He wants to lead the country, yet after 3 years of Brexit debate he must be the only person in the country without a view! He's not a Remainer, not a Leaver, indeed he can't even decide that he's an Undecided! How can he negotiate a new withdrawal treaty with the EU when he has no view if what he's suggesting is a good or a bad idea?'

I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party. — Punshhh

That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.

What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. — Punshhh

I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.

The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate. — Punshhh

I agree that most of the media is appalling. However, their aim is to sell copy, and their usual tactic is, just like the populists, to whip up fear. It's not surprising they've jumped on the opportunity Brexit offers to do that. If you're read The Guardian or the 'I' you'll know there are moderate voices, it's just that they can get drowned out in the ranting - which is why its propogators do it..

Still, fishermen could surely be said to have genuine grievances, so could those opposed to free movement. And even those who object to the EU directives - usually trivial though they are.