@MJW (I can't sort out the quoting) Yeah sure. But you are comparing two sets of future projections (those made by campaigners during the campaign, and your best guess of how things will turn out from here on) and the really, really important point about the future is that it almost completely unknowable. it is amazingly difficult to persuade people that there are no exceptions to that rule. So saying one case or the other has been shown to be wrong, is just wrong.
There's perhaps an element of that - the future being unknowable. A worry of a lot of remainers is that Brexit leaves Britain like the boiled frog - we're unable to say unequivocally it's a bad idea until looking back on 20 years of stagnation, falling even further behind on productivity and parlous state finances. Even if the most nightmarish scenarios come to pass you'll still find some Redwood character complaining, like modern day communists that the problem was with implementation.
But that's not what I was addressing or doing. There are statements made during the campaign which can now be verified as false. They are not long-term projections, or predictions of the future, but descriptions of either the situation before the referendum (which were falsifiable at the time) or about how talks would proceed in the aftermath (which are falsifiable now). The best look at how far we've moved is that prominent Brexiteers are now openly talking up "no deal" as a real option, something they wouldn't have dreamed of doing before last June. You then ask why there's not more of a backlash, after all, it's not what people were promised. Cake and eat it, quick negotiations, our 'strong hand'. And to me, part of the answer is in that article - once we come to a decision on something, we're very slow to disavow that view, even if the arguments we based that view upon are proven false. We will find other, far off justifications, people to blame or just live on the nature of probability meaning there's (an ever diminishing) chance we might still be right after all.
You really think Malcolm coming on here slagging off the English all the time and making stupid and easily identifiably false claims actually helps the cause of Scots nationalism?
I don't think anything said on here makes a tinker's cuss of a difference to any cause, however my personal preference is to at least try and be proportional in my responses. Going all Guardia Civil at this time of the day seems ott.
Briefly, the Tories are losing the cities but gaining in left-behind areas: the more a town has deteriorated, the better the Tories do. That could be because places like Mansfield are traditionally Labour, so people associate decline with Labour there, whereas in Labour-run cities both cultural and relative economic prosperity make people more attuned to Labour. Whether these trends will survive a period where Conservatives are government and decline accelerates, if that's what happens, seems dubious.
Although, housing has become less affordable, relative to incomes, in core cities, and the gap between rich and poor is in your face. IMHO, those are the drivers of Labour support.
Is there not a demographic element to this? Left behind cities and rural areas tend to be white British Booming cities tend to be much more diverse. The Tories have done a terrible job reaching out to non-whites, including May herself. On the plus side, the recent diversity audit suggests they are beginning to realise this.
Yes good old Tories they are really looking after the indigenous population.
You really think Malcolm coming on here slagging off the English all the time and making stupid and easily identifiably false claims actually helps the cause of Scots nationalism?
I don't think anything said on here makes a tinker's cuss of a difference to any cause, however my personal preference is to at least try and be proportional in my responses. Going all Guardia Civil at this time of the day seems ott.
Leopard's can't change their spots. He is a whining jessieboy who wants to read his own drivel and realise he should shut the F*** up and not embarrass himself any more.
@MJW (I can't sort out the quoting) Yeah sure. But you are comparing two sets of future projections (those made by campaigners during the campaign, and your best guess of how things will turn out from here on) and the really, really important point about the future is that it almost completely unknowable. it is amazingly difficult to persuade people that there are no exceptions to that rule. So saying one case or the other has been shown to be wrong, is just wrong.
There's perhaps an element of that - the future being unknowable. A worry of a lot of remainers is that Brexit leaves Britain like the boiled frog - we're unable to say unequivocally it's a bad idea until looking back on 20 years of stagnation, falling even further behind on productivity and parlous state finances. Even if the most nightmarish scenarios come to pass you'll still find some Redwood character complaining, like modern day communists that the problem was with implementation.
But that's not what I was addressing or doing. There are statements made during the campaign which can now be verified as false. They are not long-term projections, or predictions of the future, but descriptions of either the situation before the referendum (which were falsifiable at the time) or about how talks would proceed in the aftermath (which are falsifiable now). The best look at how far we've moved is that prominent Brexiteers are now openly talking up "no deal" as a real option, something they wouldn't have dreamed of doing before last June. You then ask why there's not more of a backlash, after all, it's not what people were promised. Cake and eat it, quick negotiations, our 'strong hand'. And to me, part of the answer is in that article - once we come to a decision on something, we're very slow to disavow that view, even if the arguments we based that view upon are proven false. We will find other, far off justifications, people to blame or just live on the nature of probability meaning there's (an ever diminishing) chance we might still be right after all.
There was a lot of hyperbole on the Remain side, punishment budgets, immediate recession etc. So, many people would conclude that both sides made misleading arguments.
But, more fundamentally, I think a lot of people treated it as a vote of (no) confidence in the EU, rather than a choice between competing manifestos.
Jeremy Hunt would be a good outside bet to shake up CCHQ.
The problem with reshuffling Hunt is finding someone who wants his old job.
Didn't she offer it to Crabbe first, but he declined and went to the backbenches to work on his struggling marriage?
Not the most popular gig in Whitehall which is probably why Hunt (who should really have gone over that Murdoch stuff) got it in the first place and is somehow still there.
I’m reminded of the phrase uttered by John Reid, when offered the job by Blair.
It’s not a popular post at all, and to his credit Hunt has done well to last seven years.
Jeremy Hunt would be a good outside bet to shake up CCHQ.
The problem with reshuffling Hunt is finding someone who wants his old job.
Didn't she offer it to Crabbe first, but he declined and went to the backbenches to work on his struggling marriage?
Not the most popular gig in Whitehall which is probably why Hunt (who should really have gone over that Murdoch stuff) got it in the first place and is somehow still there.
I’m reminded of the phrase uttered by John Reid, when offered the job by Blair.
It’s not a popular post at all, and to his credit Hunt has done well to last seven years.
Dr. Foxinsox, you're blaming the Coalition/Conservatives for the carriers, for which Brown is entirely responsible (signing a contract whereby building both was cheaper than cancelling one)?
No, I blame both Labour and Conservatives for them. It is the Consrrvatives who now propose RN cuts that end amphibious capability, and neither party properly addressed the needs for aircraft andd escorts. We would really need a substantial uplift in RN budget to make them useful.
Getting rid of any amphibious capability is probably a good move as the notion that the British public and media would tolerate the casualties associated with a contested beach landing is laughable.
Downsizing and reorienting the RM toward their original role of maritime and shipborne security rather than being just another infantry brigade would also be a good idea.
I would see the role of the armed forces generally as: defence of the home islands and sealanes, and ability to land small expeditionary, highly mobile light infantry forces across a wide variety of terrain, and support them in these actions.
I cannot see how the carriers fit into the profile of any foreign war that we would wish to fight.
Jeremy Hunt would be a good outside bet to shake up CCHQ.
The problem with reshuffling Hunt is finding someone who wants his old job.
Didn't she offer it to Crabbe first, but he declined and went to the backbenches to work on his struggling marriage?
Not the most popular gig in Whitehall which is probably why Hunt (who should really have gone over that Murdoch stuff) got it in the first place and is somehow still there.
I’m reminded of the phrase uttered by John Reid, when offered the job by Blair.
It’s not a popular post at all, and to his credit Hunt has done well to last seven years.
Exit poll: LibDems from 266, down from 286, lose seats but keep majority.
Hope and Constitutional Dems 55 each.
Seems a less than wonderful Abe result, given the optimal split in the opposition?
How are the minor parties doing - Komeito, Communists, etc.?
Yup, it's lower than the way people were talking when he called the election. But I guess the split wasn't exactly optimal for him in that Hope was led by somebody recently from his own party, pushing basically same policies (minus a couple of populist tweaks like anti-VAT-increase), so you could say that Koike was splitting both government and opposition.
IIUC Komeito is pretty much unchanged, as they generally tend to be, because their voters are part of a religious organization that basically turns out all their members on pain of eternal damnation, or whatever it is they threaten you with in Soka Gakkai. Communists seem to be down a bit, presumably from competition from the now-obviously-liberal-left Constitutional Dems.
This is really interesting by the way. Please keep up the updates.
The Conservative Party does not have 'chairwomen'. Or 'chairs', other than those you sit on. All its chairmen are chairmen, whether male or female. We do gender equality in our elections, thank you, not in silly PC naming conventions.
@MJW (I can't sort out the quoting) Yeah sure. But you are comparing two sets of future projections (those made by campaigners during the campaign, and your best guess of how things will turn out from here on) and the really, really important point about the future is that it almost completely unknowable. it is amazingly difficult to persuade people that there are no exceptions to that rule. So saying one case or the other has been shown to be wrong, is just wrong.
There's perhaps an element of that - the future being unknowable. A worry of a lot of remainers is that Brexit leaves Britain like the boiled frog - we're unable to say unequivocally it's a bad idea until looking back on 20 years of stagnation, falling even further behind on productivity and parlous state finances. Even if the most nightmarish scenarios come to pass you'll still find some Redwood character complaining, like modern day communists that the problem was with implementation.
But that's not what I was addressing or doing. There are statements made during the campaign which can now be verified as false. They are not long-term projections, or predictions of the future, but descriptions of either the situation before the referendum (which were falsifiable at the time) or about how talks would proceed in the aftermath (which are falsifiable now). The best look at how far we've moved is that prominent Brexiteers are now openly talking up "no deal" as a real option, something they wouldn't have dreamed of doing before last June. You then ask why there's not more of a backlash, after all, it's not what people were promised. Cake and eat it, quick negotiations, our 'strong hand'. And to me, part of the answer is in that article - once we come to a decision on something, we're very slow to disavow that view, even if the arguments we based that view upon are proven false. We will find other, far off justifications, people to blame or just live on the nature of probability meaning there's (an ever diminishing) chance we might still be right after all.
People have a lot of psychological sunk costs in their Brexit decision, and will not change their minds easily, particularly before the event.
There will be some who genuinely change. There will be some who falsely recall so will claim to have always supported X. The biggest change is likely through the grim reaper, as younger people seeing the pain of Brexit and little advantage age. Brexit will be the new status quo that they can blame.
In 10 years or so we should see a major party wanting to reapply, and it may well be the Tories as they try to regain ground with the under 60's, the current under 50's.
Briefly, the Tories are losing the cities but gaining in left-behind areas: the more a town has deteriorated, the better the Tories do. That could be because places like Mansfield are traditionally Labour, so people associate decline with Labour there, whereas in Labour-run cities both cultural and relative economic prosperity make people more attuned to Labour. Whether these trends will survive a period where Conservatives are government and decline accelerates, if that's what happens, seems dubious.
Although, housing has become less affordable, relative to incomes, in core cities, and the gap between rich and poor is in your face. IMHO, those are the drivers of Labour support.
Is there not a demographic element to this? Left behind cities and rural areas tend to be white British Booming cities tend to be much more diverse. The Tories have done a terrible job reaching out to non-whites, including May herself. On the plus side, the recent diversity audit suggests they are beginning to realise this.
Partly. I think core cities have much higher proportions of people who feel they have grievances against society (economic, racial, political) than small towns or rural areas, and they vote accordingly.
Briefly, the Tories are losing the cities but gaining in left-behind areas: the more a town has deteriorated, the better the Tories do. That could be because places like Mansfield are traditionally Labour, so people associate decline with Labour there, whereas in Labour-run cities both cultural and relative economic prosperity make people more attuned to Labour. Whether these trends will survive a period where Conservatives are government and decline accelerates, if that's what happens, seems dubious.
Although, housing has become less affordable, relative to incomes, in core cities, and the gap between rich and poor is in your face. IMHO, those are the drivers of Labour support.
Is there not a demographic element to this? Left behind cities and rural areas tend to be white British Booming cities tend to be much more diverse. The Tories have done a terrible job reaching out to non-whites, including May herself. On the plus side, the recent diversity audit suggests they are beginning to realise this.
Partly. I think core cities have much higher proportions of people who feel they have grievances against society (economic, racial, political) than small towns or rural areas, and they vote accordingly.
Additionally, car ownership levels, like home ownership levels, tend to be higher in small towns and rural areas than in core cities. People can't rely on public transport, the big hospitals are miles away, there are no tower blocks filled with social tenants looking out on the fabulous house of the rich, so people are more inclined to favour lower taxes over higher public spending.
Comments
But that's not what I was addressing or doing. There are statements made during the campaign which can now be verified as false. They are not long-term projections, or predictions of the future, but descriptions of either the situation before the referendum (which were falsifiable at the time) or about how talks would proceed in the aftermath (which are falsifiable now). The best look at how far we've moved is that prominent Brexiteers are now openly talking up "no deal" as a real option, something they wouldn't have dreamed of doing before last June. You then ask why there's not more of a backlash, after all, it's not what people were promised. Cake and eat it, quick negotiations, our 'strong hand'. And to me, part of the answer is in that article - once we come to a decision on something, we're very slow to disavow that view, even if the arguments we based that view upon are proven false. We will find other, far off justifications, people to blame or just live on the nature of probability meaning there's (an ever diminishing) chance we might still be right after all.
But, more fundamentally, I think a lot of people treated it as a vote of (no) confidence in the EU, rather than a choice between competing manifestos.
It’s not a popular post at all, and to his credit Hunt has done well to last seven years.
Remember he was at Culture when he was caught out over Murdoch.
I cannot see how the carriers fit into the profile of any foreign war that we would wish to fight.
Or have they just come off whatever illegal substances they were ingesting when they thought this one up?
The damage is done of course.
There will be some who genuinely change. There will be some who falsely recall so will claim to have always supported X. The biggest change is likely through the grim reaper, as younger people seeing the pain of Brexit and little advantage age. Brexit will be the new status quo that they can blame.
In 10 years or so we should see a major party wanting to reapply, and it may well be the Tories as they try to regain ground with the under 60's, the current under 50's.
https://twitter.com/AngryScotland/status/921673738508259331
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD