UKH

… sorry but another Brexit post - thought David Lammy was utterly compelling... oh for more like him...

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/2233369893610503/UzpfSTUxOTA4N... 

He is certainly a good orator, and seemingly one of the few MPs that actually care about the fraud and lies peddled

You should have added "on both sides" at the end

He could write my posts for me!

Yes, I have seen another speech by him last year too, he does seem to at least talk the talk, I've not seen anything either way to know if he walks the walk. Going on his speeches, I'd vote for him.

Well that's refreshing for what it's worth.

jk

I'm not so sure: he appears to be reading that speech and, on occasions, stumbles over his words.

Yes, it was an excellent speech and a reminder that the cream certainly hasn’t risen to the top in either the Labour or the Conservative party. 

It’s the content and the honesty to say it rather than the performance. 

Everything he says is likely correct.

But I think he's missing the point.

The few people I know who voted Brexit don't care about any of the Brexit selling points (lies) he raised.  They care about the things he fails to mention....  

That tw*ts like Lammy constantly treat their viewpoints as invalid, demonise their identity, and label those who don't align with his ideology as reactionaries, racists and dinosaurs.  As this becomes embedded in the framework of society there is little they can do to fight back directly.

So the only option becomes extending an almighty finger to everything he stands for - in this case that includes Brexit.  

Until the likes of Lammy can comprehend this, that holding a non-Left political ideology doesn't by default make you a reprobate, he will continue to be dumbstruck by bloody-minded opposition to things he holds dear.  This speech, as usual from him, shows how out of touch he is with those he's trying to reach.

speak for yourself

Not sure I follow.  I'm a remainer.  

I was remarking on the comment that he is a 'good orator.' The quality of the oratory has nothing to do with the content of the speech.

I doubt he's trying to reach the hardcore Brexiteers on either the left or the right. I suspect he's appealing to the middle 60% of the electrit than could easily be persuded a second vote is the only way to stop all the silliness.

As a remainer, I think I'd agree.  I have seen the 'speech' written down and it is single line sentence after sentence.  Not what I would call a really great speech.  

Brexit is about identity politics? Do you have a bet with someone to shoehorn this into every online debate you enter?

Those are the same people I'm referring to.  The ones who don't really buy into the rhetoric of hard-Brexit and probably quite like Europe.  But who are heartily sick and tired of being told by people like Lammy that they are racist for daring to have concerns with multi-culturalism and immigration, that their nationalism implies bigotry, that the centuries of systems and culture that they are proud are something they should be perpetually guilty of.

Naturally, Lammy can't discuss these things with the Brexit voters he wants to turn to Remain.  Because he's already written them off and is quite incapable of having a conversation with them - except if they conform to his, and Corbyn's, quaint and concocted idea of what "working class" means.

Your refusal to accept that it is largely about identity politics, at least enough to solidly swing any referendum on the matter solidly in favour of remain, is the problem.  Its a head-in-sand approach, studiously looking everywhere but where the problem is and therefore incapable of grasping why people appear to be voting against their best interests. 

You can point to about red buses, Boris, Russian money, and extremists screaming Nazi, and all the contradictions of the Brexit policy as much as you want...you're not going to change opinions while you ignore the elephant in the room.

The irony here is its not so much me ranting about identity politics.  Its that Lammy himself has been playing identity politics against the electorate for years.  Brexit is the backlash.

If identity politics does come into it, it's the fragile nationalism that was appealed to by these charlatans rather than a backlash against some obscure intersectionalist nonsense happening at distant university campuses in the US.

It's none of those things. It's austerity and the willingness of the establishment to blame the resultant ills visited on the British population on Brussels rather than accepting responsibility at Westminster, exactly as Lammy says. Your elephant is a mere red herring.

You wish. Your obsession with identity politics is a confirmation-seeking missile and you'd love to claim Brexit as vindication of your niche worldview, but, alas, it's bollocks.

You'll do a wonderful job winning over Brexit voters with all that.  Knock yourself out, go have a talk to some, and see how far you get.  Might as well stick your fingers in your ears and (doing as so many others do) tell them what they think; that they vote against what you want because of things you don't like.

Remain should be assured of winning with all that's happened in the last two years.  It should have been assured of winning in the years leading up to Brexit.  Funnily enough, it isn't.  There's a solid chance that Remain will lose a full and fair rerun of the referendum.  And you'll still be blaming everyone else, austerity, fragility, US campuses, etc.

Fair enough. 

You're making some pretty big generalisations there, and as far as I can tell your main point is that there are a lot of people very concerned about immigration that would not like the idea of being called racists.

Fair enough, but from where I sit I'm not seeing a lot of people referring to Brexiters on the whole as racist. Certainly there are some pretty outspoken examples, but most in my view who have a negative association with foreigners in the UK are either equating immigrants with shortage of public services (which is a UK or local planning problem rather than an immigration one, and nothing to do with the EU), or are confusing EU free movement with non-EU immigration and thinking that leaving the EU will cut down the number of asylum seekers.

If I've completely misunderstood your point, then please explain more clearly the gripe you're assuming large numbers of people have with the likes of David Lammy.

Not wanting to come across all school playground but, like you, you mean?

Really? With Cameron blaming Brussels whenever he could right up until the campaign started and with the right-wing media still doing so? You think Remain would romp home in a re-run if some students stopped using gender-neutral pronouns?

My point is about Lammy and those who have played the identity politics game.  For years they've done a damn fine job of painting anyone to the right of them as backwards.  Funnily enough, exactly the people who would eventually vote for Brexit.  There's one way to think and if you're not on board then your Tory scum, a UKIP bigot, a racist, unenlightened, not with the modern era.

This isn't a case so much of individuals.  It's of government policy.  If Africa or the Middle East were seeing the levels of demographic change from European migration that Europe is seeing from African and Middle Eastern migration, you can be damn sure Lammy and most of the Labour party would be demanding a full and frank discussion about it.  But he and others have made the discussion no-go territory.

Well, the people on the receiving end of that have decided to do identity politics of their own - put a fence up around their conception of nation that even Lammy can't touch.  Poll after poll has shown Brexiteers acknowledge and are willing to pay an economic cost for that.  And all we do is keep telling them is that their decision was stupid...because there will be an economic cost of Brexit.

Remain is utterly failing to connect.  For all its high-minded globalist values, it does a great job of ignoring the viewpoints of the unwashed who aren't with the programme.

Your view seems to be that the Brexit masses are dupes of a dastardly press, incapable of making up their own minds with the freedom of thought and insight you are graced with. 

And you still don't get why they won't pay attention to you, or the pro-Remain press?  

I'm curious, do you believe them when they say they'll accept pain for brexit?

It would seem odd to me. If we take brexit to be the huge howl in response to the pain of austerity and change why do we believe these millions will gladly watch their pensions shrink, their hospitals fail, their taxes rise... All in stoic silence they have never yet exhibited.

I don't buy it, it's the easy bravado of people who don't believe things really can get much worse and the consequences for all of us are going to be terrible when reality dawn's.

Jk

Yes.  It'll likely be a different matter when it happens, just like a lot of right-on lefties like the idea of environmentalism (until it means no holiday in Thailand) or immigration (but probably wouldn't want to live too long in areas where immigration has negative impacts).

That's assuming it's a howl against austerity.  The economic crash obviously plays a part, but whether the resulting length and depth of austerity measures is the driver is very much open to question. 

I agree the rationalisations for Brexit are mostly absurd.  But the reasons for voting for Brexit are not - not if you are trying to stop an otherwise unstoppable political project.  It is about the perception that your identity is not permitted to negotiate and debate on an equal footing, or compete in proportion to its size, in a culture that increasingly puts identity first. 

It's a shame that people who so readily put themselves into the shoes of prominent minorities, who fight their corner, and who urge us to "acknowledge their lived realities" are incapable of doing the same for the types of communities who voted for Brexit.  Instead they just preach to them that they have been fooled, are mistaken, and are ignorant of the real issues that impact them. 

In part, also true.  It's many things.  My point is there is low hanging fruit in the electorate who could be swung to Remain if only Remain bothered to take their complaints seriously, and acknowledged that they may just have a point.

I'm still struggling to relate to your gripes. Have you seen the levels of migration - both refugee and economic - into countries such as Jordan and the Lebanon? And then even talking about African and Middle Eastern migration at all makes me wonder what on earth it all has to do with the UK being part of the EU. Certainly there is a lot of confusion around immigration, encouraged in no small part by scaremongering by Farage, ERG et al, and I'm sure this confusion isn't being countered as well as it could or should be, but to lay the blame at the feet of the likes of Lammy rather than the arch Brexiters or the extreme end of the press seems pretty odd to me.

So please tell us all how people who think Brexit will reduce illegal immigration can be 'connected' with without actually mentioning the fact that they've been completely misled by charlatans?

And how would you propose addressing their point then, while still holding to the fact that Brexit (particularly one without a deal) will put the country into an awful position? As far as I can see, David Lammy is trying to do that. He is acknowledging the fact that successive governments have neglected huge swathes of the country and left them behind and hurting. What more should he do to take their complaints seriously?

That isn't my "view", it's a direct response to part of your post where you suggested that the last two years were nothing but a wall-to-wall pro-Remain advert, which is demonstrably untrue.

"They"? Like the homogeneous mass "they" are? You're so in touch with "them" it's spooky.

Do you really think Remain STILL need to convince ANY of the electorate to swing to Remain? I’d have thought Leaves numbers no longer add-up to anything like a majority. I think the only problem is with numbers in the Commons to force a second peoples vote....

Jordan and Lebanon neighbour conflict areas, large numbers of migrants are relatives, and from broadly culturally, linguistic and religiously similar regions.  Its apples and oranges.  And they aren't happy about it.  My point was comparing flows of European migrants into Africa or the Middle East and how a discussion on its merits would absolutely be taking place if it was at similar levels and reversed.  Lammy would no doubt be leading that charge.  It's a double standard, and for so long highlighting it has automatically earned you the bigot/racist title.  

Rightly or wrongly, the traditional view that refugee populations stop at their first safe haven has put a responsibility on neighbouring countries to prevent conflict.  The further from the conflict you are, the lesser the role you are required to play in dealing with it.  When the UK's border is extended all the way to the edge of the EU, and when the left-aligned view is that the Dublin Accord is worthless, you can see exactly why people angered by demographic change want to "take back control".  For decades the perception has been that no control, even where it was possible, has been enforced.  And if every time that gripe is raised, and the response is "Racist!", you shouldn't be surprised that when, presented with the option, voters decide to shut up shop and leave the EU.  Refugee flows are relatively low, but they are just one part of a bigger picture.

I have no idea.  Most Brexiteers understandably seem to want a system like Australia.  Does it work?  Who knows.  If it does it certainly wouldn't be immediate and may be decades from having an impact.  The point is, if you disregard all arguments against immigration being at the level it has been, don't be surprised that, when given the opportunity and an official voice on the matter, people choose the most draconian option.

Stifle the debate, this is where it goes.  Lammy played his role here.

The trouble with Lammy is he is always full on outrage. There is never any subtlety. So when  he is right, perhaps now, people have tuned out. 

I think you're missing my point.  Remain doesn't need to convince them of anything.

Remain just needs to be a less obnoxious alternative that is more open to their complaints.

So long as we present ourselves as the least attractive team to side with, automatically labelling genuine and actual experience as bigotry and stupidity, why would any wavering Brexiteer decide to change sides?    

I have massive problems with the most rabid Brexiteers.  They are lost causes.  But they aren't all the monolithic mass the pro-Remain media likes to portray them as.  Huge numbers clearly don't speak the same language as the liberal university educated masses in London, but we seem intent on considering them stupid for doing so.  As much as Corbyn's stance on Brexit pisses me off, he's at least accepting of these people in a way that the sneering remainers seem incapable of. 

I’m not quite so sure Corbyn is as accepting of “these people” as you say. He has too much, personal and otherwise, invested in trying to change the Commons numbers via an election. To this end he’s doing his dammedest to keep as quiet as a church mouse in the hope he’ll not have alienated a large section of his vote by the time the Tories finally implode and a general election is called. If he wins, then we might get to find out his true EU views.

I'm pretty sure his EU views are pretty well known already, and are completely out of sync with those of both his party membership and his party votership. But still he keeps quiet while the iceberg approaches, apparently in the hope that, when Captain May goes down with the ship, he may be given a chance to captain the lifeboat.

Most "migrants" in Lebanon are genuine refugees and the vast majority do not have relatives there. Many come from countries that at not contiguous, e.g. Iraqi refugees. And they are not "religiously similar", in fact the population of Lebanon is about a religiously diverse as it is possible to imagine and many of these groups are antagonistic to each other but only held together by a common dislike (understatement) of neighbouring Israel. The groups in Lebanon include Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Palestinians, Iraqis, Syrians, Bedouin,  Maronites, Druse, Hezbollah etc.

Lebanon is about the size of Yorkshire, and yet has taken in this vast quantity of refugees. By comparison, our own accommodation of the recent refugees has been pathetic, disgraceful even.

I'm really struggling to see how any of this is relevant to the UK leaving the EU. The UK is not obliged to accept refugees from outside the EU and in fact it chooses to accept very few.

You could argue that refugees or economic migration into EU states is a problem, and if you were in Italy or Greece you may have a point. But non-EU migration into the UK has had almost nothing to do with the UK's EU membership and will not be changed by Brexiting. Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely that non-EU immigration into the UK would be allowed to grow considerably if Brexit were to be allowed to go ahead.

You do know that Hezbollah aren't a religious sect don't you? That seems an odd one to add in to that list.

I have no problem with environmentalists who choose to live without the hair shirt, I have no idea why that upsets you so.

As for those in favour of immigration and cultural diversity fleeing it: bollocks. Have you seen London, did you note how it voted. The brexit vote, what we're told was a reaction to migration was in inverse proportion to migrant density.

Austerity and change in the work we do, the community and security it affords. The 'legitimate concerns' about immigration: services, school places, waiting times, parking, wage stagnation... all austerity related which lets be honest is code for small-government conservatism.

You lose me with all this identity war stuff I'm afraid. I think mostly it's guff.

Who's preaching? We can't fix the problems in our society if we destroy our economy to appease people who've voted for undeliverable dreams.

When does taking people's complaints seriously turn to pandering and appeasement? Most of the actual problems people have are the direct result of the economic crash and tory policy, having their fears stoked and manipulated for clicks, circulation numbers and votes. Leaving the EU supercharges the problems we already face.

jk

Ron Pan referred to "broadly culturally, linguistic and religiously similar regions". I over-paraphrased that to religious. 

Hezbollah is itself mixed: it is a dominantly Shia Islamist organisation, but with a surprising proportion of Christians in its ranks.

There are non Shia in Hezbollah, I guess mainly as a result of the areas where they have either replaced the Lebanese state completely, or at least are far more efficient providers of services than the state, but it remains very much a Shia movement, and of course incredibly interconnected with many parts of the Iranian state. My old boss interviewed Hassan Nasrallah maybe a decade ago. I remember he said it was very interesting but he was impressed by the overt religiosity of the senior Hezbollah people.