|>>|| No. 86235
>I mean what is Clease doing there except moaning about the Liberal Democrats dismal election results?
Moaning about being shafted by FPTP. At the time, they were stuck in the unenviable position of being hugely popular but unelectable, because most voters prioritised blocking their least favourite option over choosing their favourite option. The Lib Dems would have stood a good chance of winning a majority if we didn't have such a crap electoral system.
My comment about polls and election results isn't particularly a criticism of Corbyn, but his supporters; despite all evidence to the contrary, many of them ardently believe that he is wildly popular and is posed to take a landslide. That misapprehension has profoundly disconnected Corbynism from reality and crippled the ability of Labour to campaign effectively, because so many people in the Labour movement simply don't believe that they need to campaign.
>I'm not sure that's true. I'm willing to bet that most people's first choice option for Brexit is either No Deal or Remain/Second Referendum then remain.
The polling is really tricky, because people have intransitive preferences - you get very different answers depending on how you ask the question. I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to present the status quo as an extreme option. No deal has never polled better than about 25% and the withdrawal agreement becomes vastly more popular if you pit it head-to-head against no deal or remain. At the least, about 40% of the electorate want neither no-deal nor remain; it's not clear from the data what proportion of remainers are fanatically devoted to the EU and what proportion just don't want the upheaval of Brexit.
>The progressive pruning of the ability of government to actually directly help people through the 80s and 90s have gotten us to the stage where the only hope of hope (or at least catharsis) is to have the government do crazy things.
I don't really buy this argument. Blair delivered some fairly substantial improvements in the living standards of ordinary people - the National Minimum Wage, massive increases in health and education spending, major urban regeneration etc. By pretty much any measure, the fag-end of the Blair years were the best years in British history. The electorate rejected that vision in favour of austerity in 2010 and has largely stuck with that position. If the electorate wanted moderate democratic socialism, they could have given Miliband a majority in 2015; if they wanted a radical alternative, they could have given Corbyn a majority in 2017. Instead, they have voted fairly indifferently for the purse-tightening vision of some very mediocre Tories.
A lot of Brexit voters clearly want some sort of radical change, but it's entirely unclear what that change is and how we can deliver it; immigration has become a key issue largely because of a lack of clarity about anything else. There's a vague nostalgia and a sense that things are in a state of decay, but very little that can be translated into policy and a surprising unwillingness by leavers to blame that decay on austerity. Most of the stuff that people complain about on a day-to-day basis - NHS waiting times, bin collections, potholes, skint schools - could be fixed simply by reverting public spending to 2009 levels as a share of GDP.
It's arguably reasonable to conceptualise Brexit as a backlash against the complexity of the modern world and Britain's status as a mid-sized economy rather than a global superpower, but I'm not sure how that can be translated into policy. Unplug the internet? Try and take back India? Give everyone 1960s jobs with 1960s wages and 1960s spending power? I feel like I'm being unfair, but I just can't seem to get any Brexiters to explain in concrete terms what they actually want, aside from lower immigration.