I think blaming everything on Tory party infighting is to miss the point. Yes that fighting has been endemic since Major's time and grown steadily, but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules. I'm not convinced the whole Brexit issue has been concocted by the far right, who've then persuaded the rest of the leavers to believe it and agitate for the referendum etc. The large-scale immigration of the last decade is surely what raised public ire, as shown by the rise of UKIP and Farage. The anti-EU view is a legitimate one and if it spits the Tory party then Toryism needs to adapt to cope. Political parties have to do that periodically as the world changes. If the Labour Party had not been in such a mess since BIair stood down they could have kept the Tories out of power and the rift might have been healed quicker. Instead they've proved inept too, and left a divided Tory party to soldier on with so little opposition it didn't really need to confront and deal with the split. Sadly, Corbyn is continuing that, seemingly ensuring another five years of opposition for Labour.

I agree that this type of populism thrives on people not knowing what is best for them. But I would still argue that Trump is often giving the people (those people) EXACTLY what they want (demonizing immigrants). — ZhouBoTong

What Trump and other populists give people is what they feel they want. ie feel, from their uneducated fear-propelled guts. His means is to exploit base fears, not to educate in the realities of the situation, its perspective, or what future knock-on effects short-termist policies can have. Populism is a politics not of reason but of ignorance and fear. That's what separates it from communism, socialism, liberalism, all of which have some philosophiccal basis which their politicians can hope voters learn and agree with rationally.

I'm sure Trump's supporters don't especially want to hate immigrants, but they are scared into seeing immigrants as threats to their jobs and culture, and their fear is whipped into prejudice and nationalism by liars and distorters like Trump. That's happened throughout history. Its human nature for the strong to exploit the weak I'm afraid.

Perhaps my fear is that despite the huge growth of internet communication and the potential raising in peoples' education, societies instead become more fear-based. The new tools of individually targeted (social) media news are used ever more accurately to misinform and so exploit fears. It's a trait of authoritarianism to manipulate the media and ensure only the 'right' news is published. In a world where no-one any longer trusts any news media outlet who is to be believed? Maybe only the 'reassuring' voice of the President?

The best hope of things getting better seems to me that populism fails to achieve its goals: ie Trump cannot bring sustainable jobs back form China and runs up a crushing trade deficit. The trouble is, that won't kill the ogre of nationalism and fear of foreigners, it may even make it worse.

Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England? — Punshhh

We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..

As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.

I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences). — Punshhh

Actually I was considering the idea of England being separate to the other countries in the UK completely regardless of Brexit. Yes the leaver-envisaged post-Brexit future would be bad news economically, but within that, I don't think England would suffer much additional pain from losing the other UK countries - if of course a good trade deal is negotiated with the EU.. Don't forget Scotland intends to keep the Pound even after leaving the UK, which given that they have no say over monetary policy can only harm them economically relative to England.

I think the idea of a quick divergence of the UK from EU standards and tarifs is self-evidently daft - losses would clearly outweigh gains. There is much simplistic bluster and 'blue-skies-thinking' from the Right, but if there is divergence it will be slow and not easy. As you say the pro-EU voices won't go away even after Brexit, and I doubt Boris will have enough of a majority to ignore them completely.

Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? — Punshhh

Why would the end of the Union be bad for England. Both Scotland and N Ireland (and I'm sure Wales) are subsidised by the English tax payer. By leaving they'd make England better off. England has 55m of the 65m UK population. Not that I'm in favour of the break-up, but I'm beginning to think it's inevitable that Ireland will be reunited and the Scots will vote for independence when (if) we leave the EU.

Perhaps it's another kick-back against globalisation, but there are other examples of small peoples wanting independence and their own state - the Catalans, the Kurds, the Sudan split, the Chechens, even going back to the break-up of Yugoslavia. It's not just a UK issue.

And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition) — Punshhh

Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?

I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?

A Labour/SNP coalition might prevent the Scots seeking to leave ASAP if the Labour 2nd EU ref returned a Remain result. But would even that silence Ms Sturgeon?

The latest polls show the Tories cracking 40%, Labour cracking 30% and the Brexit Party down at 5%. It looks more like the old 2-horse race now. Farage seems to be losing influence by the day. Is Tory pressure to give them a clear run at Labour marginals by standing down Brexit MPs working? Even if Farage ignores them it looks like voters are getting the message.

I think Labour's socialist style huge spending plans are going to be shot to pieces soon - possibly by a bullet fired by McDonald into his own foot. The one good thing to come out of this election may be the end of Corbyn..

I think easing poverty is A populist view. I am a bit confused by THE populist view. Trump and Bernie are both populists. The populism of "the american dream" still just has more support than the populism of reducing poverty. (in America, things are different in Scandinavia) But it does feel like the populism of "billionaire's suck" is catching up with the american dream. — ZhouBoTong

Just to be clear: the populism I'm talking about is that espoused by Trump, the Brexit Party and others who promote nationalism at the cost of demonising immigrants. Other policies could be said to be based on what the people want or what is best for them, but that's not what I'm majoring on here.

Part of the reason for this thread is to discuss the point that far from giving the people what they actually want or need, this populism is a con whose primary aim is power for the leaders like Trump who preach it. Thus it's no more a force for improvement in society than was the credo of Hitler. If it spreads, as the increasing mobility of poor or war-ravaged populations seem to threaten it could, what will the future look like? The more public fear is whipped up the more dictators can seem acceptable as the antidote. I don't think it's coincidence that, whatever destabilising tactics the Russian use internationally, Trump unashamedly admires Putin..

There is not a huge bulk of middle class. That was my point. About 75% of people make less than the mean income. About 50% of people make less than HALF of the mean income, i.e. the median is half the mean. The mode (the amount that the largest group makes) is close to half of the median, or a quarter of the mean. The vast, vast majority of people are way, way below average. — Pfhorrest

I don't think the mean income has any meaning in a distribution where the high figures are so huge compared to the lower ones. What are the actual figures? I think in the UK poverty is defined as half the median, but I'm guessing there's less income inequality here than in the US - although the gap has probably narrowed over the last decade.

I think a lot of the frustration that breeds fertile ground for populist seeds to root comes from a sense of powerlessness. People don't mind others getting on, but they mind having no means to improve their lots, and being vulnerable to the greed of others. The 2008 crisis, where a small number of bankers played fast and loose - effectivley with the western economies, has left a huge amount of anger. Why should ordinary people trust these 'elites', when it's clear they're irresponsible and only out for ther own good? We've also had a scandal here where MPs were found to be cheating on their expense claims - some claiming money for ludicrous reasons. That too dented public confidence, although compared to other countries where corruption is endemic we probably have it good.

The referendum on leaving the EU here produced a surprise 'leave' result. The extent to which people wanted to kick the establishment was not recognised. But there is a view that especially among the older generation part of the reason for the leave vote was people wanting to turn the clock back, to return to a pre-globalised economy, to 'get our country back'. The naiivety of this view is clear but that doesnt stop it persisting. Most people are still tied to the view of 'their' nation state repelling foreign invaders when necessary. This is surely another good chord for populists to strike, as many have.

If a simple view of "populism" would be the political version of "give the people what they want", then of course it will dominate in an open democracy. — ZhouBoTong

That would then entail that some kind of socialism should dominate in an open democracy, whether under that name or not, since the thing that most people want is the easement of their material suffering, and since wealth and income are distributed in such a way that most people have far less than the average (mean), the vast majority of people could get that material suffering eased at the expense of the tiny minority who hold all the wealth. — Pfhorrest

I think that's too black and white. It ignores the huge bulk of the middle class, who are not 'suffering' and who have aspirations to be richer and more successful; also, the aspirational working classes, who espouse hard work and want to improve their lot - whether via freedom to pursue 'The American dream' or just wanting to beat their neighbours you can debate over. As you say, socialist policies would dominate if the easing of poverty was the populist view.

During 8 years of austerity (that you mentioned is coming to an end), Britain's national debt increased. Why not make it austere enough to have an impact? Why is it ending when "progress" has been so slow? I get that the deficit has dropped significantly since 2007-2008, but a large chunk of that would have occurred anyway as the economy recovered. The UK is still running a deficit, with austerity ending wouldn't we expect that to start trending up again (in a few years, I think they have planned budgets for a while)? — ZhouBoTong

I think the governing principle is not whether there is a deficit, but how large it is, and whether it is less than the rate of inflation. So if inflation is at the 2% target and the deficit is 1.5% then the total debt is increasing at less than inflation - ie decreasing in real terms. Interest rates also have a bearing. As they are now so low both govt and opposition are happy to borrow more. Infact they are talking about instituting new targets for the annual repayment of debt as a % of gdp (I think of ~3% for the Tories and ~5% for Labour), rather than just aiming to limit the size of the deficit.

Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify. — Punshhh

Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..

Remember the Liberals' 'personal pledge' to save student grants? Reactionary 'honesty' can 'prove successful' only if backed by total lies, surely? — iolo

That sounds a bit unfair. As the junior partners in the coalition govt the Lib Dems could not hope to get all their manifesto pledges into the joint policy agreement. As the Tories did not like the scrapping of tuition fees it was axed. Being the govt they were then obliged to vote with the Tories on the subject. I have thought the Lib Dems were unfairly lambasted for this 'breaking of a pledge' ever since. Maybe people in the UK need to learn how coalition govts work.

When do politicians give serious consideration to compromise? When do politicians suggest we have to face difficulties if we really want things to change? These are truths of governing that populists will avoid. — ZhouBoTong

In the UK, after the 2008 crash we had an election in 2010, and the new coalition govt was open about the need to restore the public finances. This led to a squeeze on spending, large cuts, and 8 years of austerity. It's only in the last year or two that this period of austerity has been ended. It was handy that they could blame the deficit on the previous govt, but they were open about the challenges ahead, and dilligent about seeing it through in the face of opposition outcry. Indeed David Cameron won the 2015 election against the background of cuts, so honesty can prove successful sometimes..

I’m not aware of any of them preaching fear of foreigners. Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted or misrepresented what they actually say. — NOS4A2

Perhaps 'preaches fear' is the wrong term. What it does is demonise foreigners and whip up alarm that 'they' are out to take 'us' over, subject us to 'their' (foreign) cultures and rob us of our national identity. 'Identity politics' is the in-fashion term to describe this. By invoking xenophobic fear populists can convert political allegiance from relatively reason-based to the level of identity-threat usually found in religious zealotry.

From experience of the UK scene I'd assert that populist tactic number one is to stoke up fears of immigrant invasions - taking 'our' jobs and using up 'our' public sevices.

Populism is more a politics of the dichotomy between the elite and the people, no matter their political leanings. I don’t think it can last because once they take power, they are the elite. But I think populism can be beneficial so long as the demagoguery preaches freedom rather than megalomania. — NOS4A2

Does it preach freedom? It seems to me it preaches fear of foreigners and building walls to keep them out. Are we free inside a self-built prison?

Your Overtone window has shifted significantly. I though third way politics worked best for the UK, what happened? — Wallows

Not sure what Overtone Window means! I guess the Third Way worked well under Tony Blair - until the 2008 crash. Since then ordinary people have struggled to recapture their lost living standards, and are understandably miffed with the political elite. To me the problem is that their loss of faith in the elite is now being exploited by unscrupulous self-agrandisers who offer easy scapegoats and nationalist remedies. Let's be honest, this was the tactic Hitler used to gain power in the 1930's..

One definition of populism is this:

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

Is that what we're talking about? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but it doesn't 'strive to appeal' in my view. It latches onto base fears, exploits and manipulates them with half-truths and lies; and its aim is to benefit the egos and megalomania of its leaders rather than the ordinary people.

Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies. — Tim3003

Please expand on this. — Wallows

Are there any left-wing populists ? I'm a Brit, so my knowledge of Trump is limited, but isn't he a free-marketeer? He's not a Democrat.. Here the right of our Conservative Party have taken up populism with gusto. Boris Johnson has quickly usurped Nigel Farage of the Brexit Party as its chief exponent. Both have basically right-wing policies. Populists hate foreign control - so they're anti-EU here, anti-globalist everywhere, and speak in favour of the free-market insofar as it benefits them. They're not explicitly racist, but they champion the employment rights of the home-population against being undercut by immigrant workers or cheap imports. Other examples are Le Pen in France - even Bolsonaro in Brazil.

I'm not saying populists are especially concerned with economic or political theory - their yardstick is winning votes, but is it coincidence they're all right-of-centre?

I think Michel Barnier has Boris's measure. He said that when the Brexit deal talks re-started he did not think Boris was serious about wanting a deal, happy to go with no-deal. Then MPs passed the Letwin bill to stop a no-deal exit on Oct 31st, and Boris suddenly started putting real effort into the negotiations, eventually secuiring a deal. It's clear that meeting his publicly announced deadline outweighed any view he had on the markedly differing futures of the country brought about by his options for meeting it.

Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday. — Punshhh

Yes I saw the headline "Stand down Nigel". :lol: Another Farage lie. It's nothing to do with the fact that he risked letting Labour in of course...

I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity. — Punshhh

I think that is the view of a significant minority of remainers - me included. We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying. (Most leave voters are I think too emotionally involved - having been whipped up into a frenzy by Farage and his like, to consider compromising, as SSU pointed out) As it happens I do know someone who voted remain before but says he'd vote leave in a 2nd ref. Anecdotal of course, but ..

Thus the seeds were sown for the referendum in the mid naughties, which led to the defeat of Labour in 2010. By this time the strength of UKIP was threatening the Tory's — Punshhh

Surely Labour's 2010 defeat was down to the crash and their spending almost bankrupting the country - also to the fact that no-one thought Brown was any good. The UKIP poll vote did not exceed 8% til 2013, when it went well into double figures.

I don't think you can presume that all leavers are this hardline. A significant proportion are likely to be less decided and are either concerned about the behaviour of the government, or are waiting to see how the campaign goes before deciding. There is plenty of evidence for this in interviews with the public on the media. — Punshhh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50043549

This includes BBC polling (albeit from mid-October) on whether leavers/remainers have changed thieir minds since the referendum (3rd graph down): Of those who voted leave, 6% are now remain. Of those who voted remain, 27% are now leave (mostly, assuming a deal is agreed)...

Also: "On average, during the last month, polls that ask people how they would vote in another referendum suggest that 88% of those who backed Remain would do so again. Among those who voted Leave, 86% have not changed their minds." Which doesnt seem totally to match the above for remain voters! Still, I think it confirms there's not that much change in the leave voters' views.

what I have been trying to say is that this course has only been adopted by the Conservatives as a last resort. Putting Johnson into No10 was their last throw of the dice, their last ace card(or so they thought), after the failure of their "strong and stable" Theresa May. Also I think we only got to this point due to the clash of two democratic outcomes, the referendum result saying one thing and the elected MPs saying something else. — Punshhh

I think your first point is probably true - of the leaver Conservatives anyway; and as they've overrun the Remainers they hold sway now.

I've never believed the Tory claims of a Remainer parliament holding up the will of a Leaver public though. For a start the public is (or was) only marginally Leaver. And parliament would have accepted May's deal without the backstop, and did accept Boris's. Ok that majority may not have survived committee stages. But what do they expect in a hung parliament? MPs are as divided on the issue as the public, so they reflect the national view well. But populists only see in black and white so they blame MPs for being out of step. They reply that 420 constituencies voted leave, against 220 for remain. True but irrelevant.

If MPs did echo the public views on every issue there'd be no point in having them! I've never believed that they should just parrot the views of their constituents. We elect them to use their experience and knowledge to govern on our behalf. If we're never going to accept their views can differ from the majority then we end up with government by referendum, which anyone can see would be absurd. The conclusion therefore is that referendums are a bad idea.

Its not populism, although populism played a part. If it were that simple Le Pen and others like her would be in office now. Trump got into power because when the populism struck the US population was already hopelessly divided — Punshhh

So what is your definiton of 'populism'? I see it as the politics of an - invariably figure-head lead - party whose one aim is power, and whose tactic is to use any democratic method possible to achieve it. This means such tropes as giving the people what they want (or seeming to), rubbishing anyone who picks apart their flimsy emotive arguments, indeed quashing all argument with ranting and changing the subject where possible; exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - which makes BJ one - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them. Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies so it finds a ready home with Tory right-wingers.

Incidentally Le Pen is a classic populist. She's not in power because Macron is a much tougher and more skilful operator than Corbyn. Trump is clearly one too. Personally I'm not sure you can talk about 'populism' as a movement sweeping the world. That assumes some guiding force or creative aspiration. Surely it's just the fact of and the means of voters' primal fears being exploited by ruthlessly self-serving would-be leaders. Populists are above all opportunists, and the increased mass-movement of labour and goods brought by globalisation has thrown up their chance.

Watching Trump pose as he signs into law some document or other he reminds me of a Roman Emperors, ruling by decree. I'm sure this is what he'd like if he could rid of that troubesome Senate..

Also a consideration of the Tory project of the last 40 years and what it has done to our country. — Punshhh

I would answer your outcry simply: Welcome to populism! It's taking over the politics of the West, largely stoked by globalisation and the fears of immigration the easy movement of labour and refugees has stoked up in rich countries.. Boris's Tory party is just the UK manifestation of that, as is Trump in the US, Le Pen in Fance ... etc.

On widening out the discussion: Globalisation/populism should I think have its own thread. This one is for Brexit isn't it?

Perhaps Labour’s second referendum could have a third no-deal option. In the circumstances, it's not clear that a rerun is undemocratic. If the better informed decision is to remain then, as others here have pointed out, any grievance felt by leavers would be tempered by the consensus that we'll all be better off, economically. — Chris Hughes

If a referendum has 3 options, none will get a majority. Where do you go then?

I think you misunderstand what leavers are all about. The idea that now they're better informed they'd vote to remain is flawed, as the unchanging Brexit opinion polls prove. Their choice is not based on being better or worse off, but on the politics of national identity. I think you'll find they would call your claim that their grievance at losing would be tempered by being better off insulting..

As for Labour’s Brexit policy, it guarantees a second referendum, which would produce a more informed decision, and would therefore move the national mood towards unity and harmony. Support for having a second referendum has risen to neck and neck (for and against: 43% each). — Chris Hughes

I'm afraid I see polls like this as pointless. Remainers want another vote, leavers don't, so why even ask the question? Basically, it's close to 50-50 as it's always been. I don't think Labour's 2nd ref would work because Corbyn's negotiated 'Brexit' will not be considered Brexit by leavers, and so the poll will not get full public endorsement. Farage has already noted this. I don't see how you can hold a ref if half the population support neither of the options they're given. Most people did support the idea of and the question asked in the 1st ref, so its result has some validity.

Despite being a remainer my view (now that no deal is ruled out) is that the 1st ref's result has to be honoured. People's views have not changed enough to justify a rerun. The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses..

It is interesting that you suggest Corbyn can't be trusted. Can you suggest what things he can't be trusted on? Also, you imply that he will talk nonsense, or ingage in Tory like tactics. Any example of that? — Punshhh

I think many voters naturally mistrust Labour spending pledges - ie how will they be paid for? I don't trust his Brexit solution will work, and I think many others won't either. Interstingly the Tories have joined Labour in the spend-spend-spend frenzy, so their main attack weapon of profligacy will be blunted. But their is also the far-left legacy that Corbyn has. No group is trusted less than the far left I think.
To be clear though, I don't think many mistrust what he says, but that he is actually able to carry out his great reforming schemes in the real world.

But what he is saying is a word salad of hollow sound bites floundering accusations and slurs about his opponents. — Punshhh

You mean you're surprised? Sorry, but you're in for another 5 weeks of that from all sides. Well, maybe the Greens will talk a bit more about reality. Boris will follow Trump's optimism tactics I'm sure. Every US president seems to be elected on a 'Make America great again' platform. Getting voters to believe in you as an individual is more important than your policies nowadays because most voters don't understand the subtleties of policy. And they don't want to, they just want to find someone they can trust. This election may come down to who voters mistrust least - Corbyn or Johnson. Not an obvious choice!

It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.

On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less). — Benkei

I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?

And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods.

Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right. — Punshhh

I think the House of Commons is the law-making body and any referendum is only advisory. Of course the House can promise beforehand to enact the decision a referendum comes back with, as David Cameron did I think. But the bill for the withdrawal is far more complex than the yes/no decision which prompts it, so it's something the govt has to work out and pass through the Commons.

Having said that, I suppose that if the referendum is held after the EU negotiations have produced a deal, at least people know exactly what they're voting for, and the govt can then in theory pass the bill quickly. But doubtless the opposition would find ways to frustrate that.

It would be truly bizzare if a Labour govt - mostly supporting Remain, held a referendum which voted to leave, and then had to pass the bill!

It depends if there is a meaningful vote or what the balance of MPs in the house is after the election. Perhaps the referendum result will be binding. If Corbyn can get it through these hurdles there is no reason to presume that the electorate will choose the leave option. The mood and demographic has changed a lot since 2016. — Punshhh

Sorry, but I don't understand what you say: Do you mean a meaningful (parliamentary) vote on Corbyn's new deal or the existing one? If which referendum result is binding?

Benkei
2.1k
↪Tim3003
Good agreements are win-win propositions for the parties. So no, it doesn't balance out. — Benkei

By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall.

However if you think both sides can simply agree and win, tell that to Trump and the Chinese leader. The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses. The US has a 2:1 trade deficit with the UK too, so what will Trump's approach be?..

I never quite understood why making trade deals with the US constitutes getting our country back from the EU deals that have taken it away... — unenlightened

I think they mean: taking back control of immigration, law-making, saving the money we pay the EU etc. Trade deals are surely a huge red herring in the whole Brexit debate as they take forever to negotiate and their effects can be expected to balance out - if not, why would both sides agree?

↪Tim3003
He's miffed, well I can understand that. I was expecting some sort of strategy from him. Even if he gets a pact,the Tory's won't grant him any seats, they'll ask him to stand down his candidates. At the moment he's set to split the vote and let Corbyn in. Perhaps that is a better outcome than having to gift Brexit to Johnson and eat humble pie. — Punshhh

He wont get a pact, the Tories have made that clear. I doubt he'll stand down his candidates either. So they'll be demonised over and over as risking letting Labour in by splitting the Tory vote, and almost all Tory voters will stay loyal. The question is whether enough Labour leavers will back him to lose Labour some of its marginals to the Tories..- I'm sure I've heard Farage say he's targetting Labour leavers, not Tory hard Brexiteers.

Don't you think Labour's six-month plan - get a new deal, followed by a second referendum - would take a significant amount of heat out of the dichotomy? — Chris Hughes

As I said in an earlier post. No. Corbyn's renogiated withdrawal deal will include the customs union, single market etc, and for leavers be akin to no Brexit at all, so ref2 will not be viable..

Corbyn might take on the neo-liberalism driving us over that cliff. I rather like his Brexit ambivalence, and I think voters, tired, like me, not so much of delay but of division, might give him a majority. — Chris Hughes

Nice as it would be I fail to see how Labour's Brexit policy (or anyone else's) can bring about a national healing process. Brexit is so divisive precisely because the country is split more or less 50 - 50, and however it's resolved, the 'wronged' half are going to be unhappy. If we leave Remainers will probably knuckle under and get used to it longer term, as I'd guess they're more tolerant and adaptable people. If Brexit is cancelled I doubt the Leavers will stop rioting, demonstrating etc for years. Farage will be talking about overthrowing the govt..

I can't work Farage out, he is the Tory's Achilles heal, but why is he gunning so hard? I can only come up with two alternative goals, one he is bluffing while holding a secret pact with the Tory's. Two he would rather be in the EU with Corbyn in power and retain his mantle as Mr Brexit. Rather than help deliver The prize while Johnson takes all the glory.

I can't see either of these as very plausible, so what is he up to? — Punshhh

What is the mystery? He wants a fast no deal Brexit and thinks Boris is conning people, who don't realise nor want the years of delay and EU fees we'll incur by negotiating a trade deal. However, he knows his only chance of winning seats is via a pact with the Tories. He can't beat them and they won't let him 'join' them, so he's a bit miffed.

So a proportion of "leavers" are actually mistaken, rather than having well thought through legitimate concerns. Indeed he would go further and point out that there aren't any legitimate concerns about the EU which necessitate leaving the EU. — Punshhh

Some leavers justify their stance as 'to get our country back'. It's hard to fight against such meaningless generalisations, which are based on 'feelings' that the EU tells us what to do; we don't have control over immigration, our laws etc. Describing the reality doesn't counter gut-instincts, based not on hard evidence but everyday experience of life - a life surrounded by and informed by the uninformed. This is 'identity' politics, where logical arguments don't work..

Didn't Farage use to be a City trader before he came into politics? I think it's great that he's not going to stand as an MP. He knows the Tories will mobilise all their forces to keep him out - as has happened for the last SEVEN times I hear! A politician who can't get elected shows his worthlessness..