If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

There is *nothing* on the ground that has changed for those who feel the effects of mass inward migration.

Then a 2nd referendum would be a great way to show that we want to leave more than ever.:beer:

kingstreet

LHW99 wrote: »

I seem to remember there was one UK party that specifically (this time at least) wanted to Remain. Didn't seem to bring them much electoral success. General election voting tends to be on a whole range of issues that differ across the country, as well as on party lines, and policy issues seem to come a rather poor third.

If we had PR I would have voted LibDem as its the only party which now reflects my views.

In the Stafford constituency it's a straight fight between Labour in the urban areas and Conservative in the rural. My LibDem vote would have been wasted.

I voted Labour for the first time in my life. It's now ABC for me, 'anyone but conservative'.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Then a 2nd referendum would be a great way to show that we want to leave more than ever.:beer:

The forgotten masses just won't turn out.

In coming years, they will be easy fodder for new right wing parties.

As France shows, it just takes a spark to unite what seem quite disparate groups.

lisyloo

kabayiri wrote: »

There is *nothing* on the ground that has changed for those who feel the effects of mass inward migration.

The numbers of new arrivals increase yearly, and the rise in infrastructure spend to meet new demand is just not there.

I presume you are referring to the negative effects of migration.


Not the fact that some of the effects are - having GPs, nurses, consultants as well as the lower paid jobs like fruit picking.


Agree totally that infrastructure needs to be there.

lisyloo

kingstreet wrote: »

I voted Labour for the first time in my life. It's now ABC for me, 'anyone but conservative'.

For me it's anyone but labour especially with corbyn in charge (although I would swing for someone like Chukka).


I think we are where we are because people trust labour with the economy, national security etc. and in those respects the tories are a safe pair of hands.

PokerPlayer111

Betting market now showing nearly 50% chance of a 2nd EU referendum.

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

There is *nothing* on the ground that has changed for those who feel the effects of mass inward migration.

The numbers of new arrivals increase yearly, and the rise in infrastructure spend to meet new demand is just not there.

That's the reality, regardless of mood.

But the reality is that leaving the EU is not a solution to this. Since migrants are net contributers on average, the failure of infrastructure spending to keep pace is related to poor planning. High immigration should mean more money per capita, not less.

If people want less immigration that is understandable as its not sustainable forever, but everyone ignores the elephant in the room of the ageing population, which means that *cutting* immigration is also unsustainable the way our economy currently functions! There will be *less* money for infrastructure with lower immigration and *less* growth.

kingstreet

lisyloo wrote: »

For me it's anyone but labour especially with corbyn in charge (although I would swing for someone like Chukka).


I think we are where we are because people trust labour with the economy, national security etc. and in those respects the tories are a safe pair of hands.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting for the hope of a Labour government. I'd be happy to see Lefroy with a smaller majority, or a Labour MP for Stafford.

If we got a Labour government I'd just have to live with it, like I have (the risk of one at least) since my first vote in 1987.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

I presume you are referring to the negative effects of migration.


Not the fact that some of the effects are - having GPs, nurses, consultants as well as the lower paid jobs like fruit picking.


Agree totally that infrastructure needs to be there.

Joined up government policy is what makes migration effects either negative or positive.

This is my point.

6+ years of austerity; council cut backs in some places of 30%+; whilst at the same time hundreds of thousands of new arrivals; and you think people won't notice?

Proper managed migration needs a massive upfront investment to ensure the resources are there.

kingstreet

During the coalition, I seem to remember the Government having a fund to help areas with high immigration so pressure on infrastructure was mitigated.

What happened to that?

Regardless of who comes from the EU, the net 248,000 from the non-EU needs planning and similar management to infrastructure. Why is that never mentioned? It's always about immigration from the EU...