Case data, Regional England, Pillar1, by specimen date.
Taken the last month, highlighted anything over 5.
Very interesting. We're using the same data. I've only looked at England as a whole, London and Leicester. Your chart clearly shows some other problem areas. It's not just Leicester.
Doncaster not looking very good.
How is that any different to normal
The public transport to get in and more importantly out isn't too shabby.
Never mind all this Brexit shit. The CDC has just declared the Rona to be out of control in America. Brexit is done. The pox is not. And America being run through by it isn't good news for the rest of the world.
People still want to say "ah fuck it" and go to the pub on Saturday?
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
SeanF, great to see your here, don't think so since I've come back from my expedition to Tannu Tuva and back by way of Timbuctu, Tokyo, Tupelo & Toxteth. How you keepin', buddy? Stay health, happy and weird as fuq!
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
Euronationalism would resonate with a lot of fundamentalist Catholics on the continent, but I think it would fall on deaf ears in the UK.
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
BBC News: someone in Leicester — "This city is just being picked on".
Why do people think that would be the case? It makes no sense.
Personally, I bear a grudge against Leicester for hiding Richard III under that car park all those years. Makes you wonder what else they're hiding... can't trust any of them.
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
I got much the same telling off from my mother at much the same age for using p*ki.
And, not only that, but it's not an EU matter. For non-EEA citizens, it is the French government who decide who has a right to be resident.
I suspect some exaggeration as well. However there are some new issues relating to eg pensions, healthcare and pet quarantine that may be deal breakers for people owning a second home or living in France. Also freedom of movement is a EU enforced right that is separate from residency.
Never mind all this Brexit shit. The CDC has just declared the Rona to be out of control in America. Brexit is done. The pox is not. And America being run through by it isn't good news for the rest of the world.
People still want to say "ah fuck it" and go to the pub on Saturday?
How will going to the pub on Saturday or not make any conceivable difference to the spread of Covid-19 in Arizona?
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
I don't buy that. The reality is that the UK government won plenty of battles in Brussels - the biggest of which was a separation of the Eurozone from the rest of the EU, something of which is now being severely watered down as the UK is no longer able to hang tough.
But being on the winning side, and making the French roll over on state aid, is not a story.
Us being outvoted - which happened surprisingly little - does on the other hand make headlines.
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
You are correct re: decency and approach. She did NOT yell at me. Instead, she spoke calmly, clearly and straight from the heart. Can still hear her voice.
Two other comments by her re: race relations:
1. That she wondered what little poor Black kids thought, when they watched the TV and saw all the great things that other people had and they did not, and maybe never would; she had grown up poor (in days before TV) and could truly FEEL what THEY must have felt.
2. That she did NOT have a problem with inter-racial relationships, except that she worried and feared how their multi-racial children would be treated. She was a good Democrat (my father was NOT) and I'm 99.46% sure that she'd have voted for Obama. More important, she'd have felt happy and relieved that he was proof positive that a black-white boy could make it OK in the USA.
Never mind all this Brexit shit. The CDC has just declared the Rona to be out of control in America. Brexit is done. The pox is not. And America being run through by it isn't good news for the rest of the world.
People still want to say "ah fuck it" and go to the pub on Saturday?
How will going to the pub on Saturday or not make any conceivable difference to the spread of Covid-19 in Arizona?
It will make no difference in Arizona, but it might in the UK.
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.
What narrative?
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic component
Excuses excuses.
Indeed. Its not like we are short of our quotient of fat smokers and drinkers with high levels of comorbidity.
Yes, I’ve now seen a long list of excuses why England is performing worse than Scotland, but there are actually a lot of reasons why Scotland *ought* to be performing worse than England, not least levels of heart/lung disease, low general fitness, poverty, obesity, diabetes and alcohol abuse. That we are not must partly be down to good governance, but also to high compliance among the populace. Folk respect the government and experts of Scotland in a way lacking down south.
We do have some advantages
Far lower density of population Thanks to the considerable generosity of the Great British taxpayer and Barnett differentials a slightly better funded health system. A less mobile population with fewer international visitors per capita. Fewer intergenerational households (which is obviously connected with our very small percentage of immigrants). A smaller number of prats on the average Italian ski slope.
There are probably others.
My experience was that everyone (in my circle anyway) took lockdown extremely seriously from the start in March, through April and most of May. Since the beginning of June, however, it has fallen apart and is now a rather poor joke.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
I don't buy that. The reality is that the UK government won plenty of battles in Brussels - the biggest of which was a separation of the Eurozone from the rest of the EU, something of which is now being severely watered down as the UK is no longer able to hang tough.
But being on the winning side, and making the French roll over on state aid, is not a story.
Us being outvoted - which happened surprisingly little - does on the other hand make headlines.
For me, that's a national interest example not a Euronationalist example.
I agree more currency might have been made of that: "Top 5 UK wins", or similar.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
What they were offering was not full participation in the EU, but Cameron's pathetic semi-detached "I don't like it any more than you do" thin gruel.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
If you want to know the moment Remain lost the referendum see here:
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
Surely a Euronationalist campaign would be almost the opposite of that. It would be saying the good of one equals good of all. It would say this is a project that has secured an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity for ALL members, and brought countries that were under the yoke of communism and totalitarianism into the fold with minimum fuss. We should be proud of our role in that as the UK, not because we've beaten someone else but because we've achieved a good thing together with our neighbours that has benefited us all.
Personally, I think there is far too much zero sum game nonsense in international politics generally. That's the whole Trump approach - the view that, if your partners have got a good deal, you've got a bad one. That isn't true at all - a good deal is a good deal for all parties.
BBC News: someone in Leicester — "This city is just being picked on".
Why do people think that would be the case? It makes no sense.
Personally, I bear a grudge against Leicester for hiding Richard III under that car park all those years. Makes you wonder what else they're hiding... can't trust any of them.
Did you notice, they use a phony-baloney spelling to disguise their true nature. Don't you reckon, that IF they were good & decent folk, they'd write it "Lester" like it sounds?
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
Having been out all afternoon and having thought about it for a bit, is the real genius in today’s speech from the PM that he’s only spending £5bn - and that there’s going to be a similar announcement of many small things every month for the next four years?
No, the only argument that had salience for me was the slogan I saw a advertised around London a few days before the vote: “Let’s Keep Britain Great”, accompanied by a Union Flag.
It was the argument that it was strongly in our national interest and enhanced Britain's power that would have won over soft eurosceptics. Particularly Tory ones.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
Euronationalism would resonate with a lot of fundamentalist Catholics on the continent, but I think it would fall on deaf ears in the UK.
The trouble is, of course, that that's the mood music that underlay all of the most notable moves of the European Union on the continent.
So, over time, from the late 80s onwards, voters gradually cut the legs out from under the consensus that British political party leaders had of the merits of EU membership.
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
I got much the same telling off from my mother at much the same age for using p*ki.
IF she's still with us, please give her a kiss for me. You know, kinda thought my mom was unique, but wondering, how many others did the same thing for their children at a formative, teachable moment?
As I said, if it makes you feel better to ignore what was transparently obvious then and now who am I to rub the truth in your face.
But to say that Farage was not front and centre of the Leave campaign is just mind-bogglingly idiotic. And of all things, you are not an idiot. Tyndall, yes, an idiot. You, no you are not.
"Without Boris, Farage would have been a much more prominent face on TV during the crucial final weeks, probably the most prominent face. (We had to use Boris as leverage with the BBC to keep Farage off and even then they nearly screwed us as ITV did.) It is extremely plausible that this would have lost us over 600,000 vital middle class votes."
"Farage put off millions of (middle class in particular) voters who wanted to leave the EU but who were very clear in market research that a major obstacle to voting Leave was ‘I don’t want to vote for Farage, I’m not like that’. He also put off many prominent business people from supporting us. Over and over they would say ‘I agree with you the EU is a disaster and we should get out but I just cannot be on the same side as a guy who makes comments about people with HIV’."
The problem for Topping is that the only way he can reconcile himself with the fact Remain lost is by claiming it was all about xenophobia and of course he believes Farage is his perfect example of that. If it turns out that actually it was lots of other reasons to do with the basic fundamental democratic problems of the EU that won the argument then he has nothing left. That is why he is so desperate to claim it was all about Nigel.
Paul O'Flynn: "We had two campaigns - Johnson, etc for the middle classes; and Farage for the working class"
Not by design and certainly not in the eyes of Vote Leave. You might as well have said that the Liverpool Liberals or the Libertarian Party also had campaigns. They certainly campaigned on their own terms but they had no official status and did not guide the campaign to victory. Unlike Vote Leave.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
A more positive Euronationalist campaign would have needed evidence that the UK was 'winning' in the EU.
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
I don't buy that. The reality is that the UK government won plenty of battles in Brussels - the biggest of which was a separation of the Eurozone from the rest of the EU, something of which is now being severely watered down as the UK is no longer able to hang tough.
But being on the winning side, and making the French roll over on state aid, is not a story.
Us being outvoted - which happened surprisingly little - does on the other hand make headlines.
It didn't help that there was a widespread feeling that other countries ignored rules they didn't like but that the UK rigorously enforced them.
And, not only that, but it's not an EU matter. For non-EEA citizens, it is the French government who decide who has a right to be resident.
I'd have thought they'd simply need to apply for a residency visa. So long as they can prove they can support themselves, just as any non-EU visitor can do.
Admittedly, that does require them to do something and pay a fee, but I doubt selling the house is necessary.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I agree. True liking for the EU was (sadly imo) not widespread.
They go low we go high would not have worked.
So we had to go low too - and it still didn't work.
But Vote Leave went high and that's what won me over.
It wasn't Farage banging on about immigrants that won it, it was Johnson, Gove etc giving a positive image about what we could do outside of Europe. It was Johnson's sunny optimism that won it.
Philip, they BOTH won it. They combined to win it. Johnson was key. Farage was key. Both strands - immigration and sovereignty - were needed. This is undeniable. If you're going to deny it it will have to become yet another statement - number 8 it will be - on the list of your absurdities that I maintain and occasionally publish. And I know you don't want that. As so often it's perhaps a language thing. When you say "won it" you mean won YOUR vote. Fine. And Farage won other people's votes. Plenty of them.
EDIT - and massive hats off for saying "Johnson" rather than "Boris". That is huge in my book.
No, as I said Farage's bloc were on side for Leave come what may. No matter how the campaign went they were going to vote Leave, so the campaigning made no difference to them.
Farage seemed to think he could win the referendum just on migration and bringing on sufficient voters but it was going to be high turnout either way.
What Johnson did was swing sufficient numbers of voters from Remain or abstaining to Leave. Every single vote swung from Remain to Leave is worth 2 votes - one fewer for Remain and one more for Leave.
Farage's bloc were in the bag already. It was Johnson that won it by bringing Leave from a minority to a majority.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I'm not the person to ask, because I've always favoured a looser relationship with the EU. I was just wondering if a more positive Remain case would have resonated more.
After all, before 2014 only a relatively small minority of Scots were genuine nationalists, usually 15-20% of voters. Perhaps a Euronationalist campaign would have resonated with some people. But we'll never know.
The lost opportunity was really in the 2005-2008 period when both the British Government and the EU should really have got the message about federalism, and done something different with the Treaty of Lisbon so we could have stayed for the long-term.
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
I got much the same telling off from my mother at much the same age for using p*ki.
IF she's still with us, please give her a kiss for me. You know, kinda thought my mom was unique, but wondering, how many others did the same thing for their children at a formative, teachable moment?
She is. I think probably quite a lot of parents acted similarly. My mother is certainly unsympathetic to pulling down statues/slagging off the police etc. but does very much dislike being unjust and nasty to people.
My grandmother too. She would have taken the view that the British Empire was in general, a good thing, but considered apartheid and Jim Crow to be unChristian.
No, the only argument that had salience for me was the slogan I saw a advertised around London a few days before the vote: “Let’s Keep Britain Great”, accompanied by a Union Flag.
It was the argument that it was strongly in our national interest and enhanced Britain's power that would have won over soft eurosceptics. Particularly Tory ones.
You voted to knock Britain out.
I'm not refighting the referendum again with you, William.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but there are certainly Brits who live or spend a lot of time in the EU who voted Leave thinking they wouldn't lose their FOM rights.
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.
What narrative?
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic component
Excuses excuses.
Indeed. Its not like we are short of our quotient of fat smokers and drinkers with high levels of comorbidity.
Yes, I’ve now seen a long list of excuses why England is performing worse than Scotland, but there are actually a lot of reasons why Scotland *ought* to be performing worse than England, not least levels of heart/lung disease, low general fitness, poverty, obesity, diabetes and alcohol abuse. That we are not must partly be down to good governance, but also to high compliance among the populace. Folk respect the government and experts of Scotland in a way lacking down south.
We do have some advantages
Far lower density of population Thanks to the considerable generosity of the Great British taxpayer and Barnett differentials a slightly better funded health system. A less mobile population with fewer international visitors per capita. Fewer intergenerational households (which is obviously connected with our very small percentage of immigrants). A smaller number of prats on the average Italian ski slope.
There are probably others.
My experience was that everyone (in my circle anyway) took lockdown extremely seriously from the start in March, through April and most of May. Since the beginning of June, however, it has fallen apart and is now a rather poor joke.
It shouldn't be forgotten how front loaded the deaths were.
Over half of English hospital deaths happened by 15th April.
Almost all of those people were likely infected before the lockdown started.
How much virus each area had in March was likely the key determinant.
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
I'm not sure that would have worked, in the way it did (sort of) in 1975.
The trouble was that far too many hearts had been lost on the EU over the preceding 25 years.
It was no use just blaming British tabloids for that, as far too many European politicians (even today) do channelling the self-awareness of Hillary Clinton.
It was their own rhetoric and action that did for it.
Mr. xP, you give too much praise to Boris Johnson and not enough censure for the pro-EU campaign.
A positive campaign on economics would've swayed enough people. Instead they developed a bus fixation and tried arguing that we don't give Ultramegabucks to the EU, but only Hypermegabucks.
People are there to be persuaded, that's the point of democracy. The fearful approach taken by Remain proved their undoing. Boris Johnson wasn't some sort of incredible pied piper. He was a plus for the Leave campaign, but we should not forget the campaign overall was dreadful.
It's just that Remain managed to be even worse.
I disagree. The Leave campaign was better than I expected while the Remain campaign was worse than expected.
Prior to the Referendum it was expected that Leave would campaign on immigration and Remain on the economy. Instead Leave took the battle onto what was perceived to be Remains ground and the economy debate became a question of how much money we pay the EU each year.
It was a tactical and strategic masterstroke. Had Leave been led by Farage and his ilk it'd have been immigration day in, day out and would have lost.
Leave was led by Farage and his ilk.
Nope wrong again.
You wish it were not so. You wish "Leave" was lead by sophisticated scholars of sovereignty all debating the merits or otherwise of Droite de Suite or the much prized ability to reduce VAT on home energy bills. But the reality is that it was absolutely lead by Farage and his ilk with their racist posters and message on immigration.
An honest leaver would accept that and note that it was worth hitching their wagon to such people for the greater good of sovereignty.
You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and facts. No wonder you voted Remain.
Leave was led by Vote Leave. Farage was explicitly excluded and even threatened law suits when his lot were not declared the official campaign.
You want it all to have been down to Farage because that suits your warped and quite deluded world view. You simply cannot accept that your side were beaten by a better campaign that did not rely upon xenophobia.
LOL. Such a fine distinction: "Vote Leave"..."Leave EU"... @Philip_Thompson meanwhile just said "Leave" which is absolutely right to use. They were all the same.
If you had just one functioning brain cell (which I appreciate you don't) you would see what anyone with a pulse could: the "Leave" effort was lead by Farage.
You want to have aligned yourself with the cerebral Leavers (LOL) but you actually aligned yourself with the racists.
There are hardly any racists in the UK. At the last general election the BNP could only manage to put up one candidate, in Hornchurch and Upminster.
I wouldn’t go that far. Active racists are probably in the 5-10% box and passive racists in the 15-25% box.
But, our society is neither structurally nor institutionally racist, and nor are three quarters of people and we’ve made huge progress over the last 40 years.
Yet again I concur (approx) with your figures. Well well.
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
I'm not sure that would have worked, in the way it did (sort of) in 1975.
The trouble was that far too many hearts had been lost on the EU over the preceding 25 years.
It was no use just blaming British tabloids for that, as far too many European politicians (even today) do channelling the self-awareness of Hillary Clinton.
It was their own rhetoric and action that did for it.
I think in some districts, too, there was a strong desire to sock it to the man
Really? Personally think that humans are so innately tribal. God knows why, but it's true. Meaning that we ALL harbor some degree of racism. Note that Lyndon Johnson would semi-habitually throw out the N-word in private conversation. Yet he did more to advance the cause of civil rights in America (for example, 1964 Voting Rights Act) than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
As for UK, on my last visit happened to witness a confrontation between a group of British Asian teenagers and White British bobbies. Have no idea how the coppers vote, but they didn't come off as hard-core Moselyites. As for the kids, they didn't look like delinquents or gangbangers. Yet you could have cut the mutual dislike with a meat ax.
Consider my own self to be a decent, left-minded enlightened kind of guy. Yet occasionally find thoughts popping into my head that would shame Strom Thurmond. When this happens, bite my tongue and think about what my mother said when I was ten and she heard my use the N-word; not out of malice, but just cause other kids said it & I thought is was colorful speech (no pun intended).
She told me, that word is a VERY bad word. That I should never say it. That she knew Black kids when she went to high school (there were none in my school, and only one Black person in the whole town) who had bee extremely hurt by that word.
Will never forget what she said, and the way she said it. And I pray I never do.
Your mother sounds a very decent woman. And her approach to these things is commendable. I confess from time to time I get a little exasperated about the technicalities of how BAME people are to be referred to but when I do I think, like your mother, why would I want to cause unnecessary distress or offence? If its important to them it is only good manners.
I got much the same telling off from my mother at much the same age for using p*ki.
IF she's still with us, please give her a kiss for me. You know, kinda thought my mom was unique, but wondering, how many others did the same thing for their children at a formative, teachable moment?
She is. I think probably quite a lot of parents acted similarly. My mother is certainly unsympathetic to pulling down statues/slagging off the police etc. but does very much dislike being unjust and nasty to people.
My grandmother too. She would have taken the view that the British Empire was in general, a good thing, but considered apartheid and Jim Crow to be unChristian.
My parents (born in the 1940s) did a bit of both.
My Dad certainly laughed (and told) one or two racist jokes, but he also upbraided a fellow commuter who (rudely) once asked an unfamiliar black man who turned up at the railway station at 7am one morning ["what are YOU doing here?" etc.] and told him he absolutely couldn't say that. And one of his closest friends is Japanese.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I agree. True liking for the EU was (sadly imo) not widespread.
They go low we go high would not have worked.
So we had to go low too - and it still didn't work.
But Vote Leave went high and that's what won me over.
It wasn't Farage banging on about immigrants that won it, it was Johnson, Gove etc giving a positive image about what we could do outside of Europe. It was Johnson's sunny optimism that won it.
Philip, they BOTH won it. They combined to win it. Johnson was key. Farage was key. Both strands - immigration and sovereignty - were needed. This is undeniable. If you're going to deny it it will have to become yet another statement - number 8 it will be - on the list of your absurdities that I maintain and occasionally publish. And I know you don't want that. As so often it's perhaps a language thing. When you say "won it" you mean won YOUR vote. Fine. And Farage won other people's votes. Plenty of them.
EDIT - and massive hats off for saying "Johnson" rather than "Boris". That is huge in my book.
No, as I said Farage's bloc were on side for Leave come what may. No matter how the campaign went they were going to vote Leave, so the campaigning made no difference to them.
Farage seemed to think he could win the referendum just on migration and bringing on sufficient voters but it was going to be high turnout either way.
What Johnson did was swing sufficient numbers of voters from Remain or abstaining to Leave. Every single vote swung from Remain to Leave is worth 2 votes - one fewer for Remain and one more for Leave.
Farage's bloc were in the bag already. It was Johnson that won it by bringing Leave from a minority to a majority.
But "Farage's bloc" cannot be divorced from Farage. He is one of the key architects of Brexit. He devoted his political life to it and it paid off. You must accept this undeniable truth or it's going on the list.
On the upside, Hong Kong money is already flooding into the London property market, so if Hongkers entirely collapses under quasi-Nazi law, it might actually maintain the value of my pied a terre, so there's always that
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.
What narrative?
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic component
Excuses excuses.
Indeed. Its not like we are short of our quotient of fat smokers and drinkers with high levels of comorbidity.
Yes, I’ve now seen a long list of excuses why England is performing worse than Scotland, but there are actually a lot of reasons why Scotland *ought* to be performing worse than England, not least levels of heart/lung disease, low general fitness, poverty, obesity, diabetes and alcohol abuse. That we are not must partly be down to good governance, but also to high compliance among the populace. Folk respect the government and experts of Scotland in a way lacking down south.
We do have some advantages
Far lower density of population Thanks to the considerable generosity of the Great British taxpayer and Barnett differentials a slightly better funded health system. A less mobile population with fewer international visitors per capita. Fewer intergenerational households (which is obviously connected with our very small percentage of immigrants). A smaller number of prats on the average Italian ski slope.
There are probably others.
My experience was that everyone (in my circle anyway) took lockdown extremely seriously from the start in March, through April and most of May. Since the beginning of June, however, it has fallen apart and is now a rather poor joke.
Partly right, but high pop density in Greater Glasgow (half the nation’s pop).
Bollocks. Scotland has been getting fleeced for centuries.
Valid point.
Probably correct, but I haven’t seen stats. Scots tend to have close-knit, inter-generational extended families in a way I suspect has largely died out down south.
Yes, we have far fewer “conspicuous consumption” wankers.
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.
What narrative?
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.
Difference is that Scotland really is at nearly zero deaths from Covid.
The English update is good news, but it's not zero Covid deaths; it's the number of Covid deaths is less than the variability in the baseline. England is getting there, but noticeably more slowly than many of our neighbours.
Scotland shouldn't be compared to England it should be compared to a region of England as that is comparing like-for-like in population areas.
Many regions of England are at or near zero COVID deaths.
Scotland has fewer ethnic minorities as well, and there does appear to be a genetic component
Excuses excuses.
Indeed. Its not like we are short of our quotient of fat smokers and drinkers with high levels of comorbidity.
Yes, I’ve now seen a long list of excuses why England is performing worse than Scotland, but there are actually a lot of reasons why Scotland *ought* to be performing worse than England, not least levels of heart/lung disease, low general fitness, poverty, obesity, diabetes and alcohol abuse. That we are not must partly be down to good governance, but also to high compliance among the populace. Folk respect the government and experts of Scotland in a way lacking down south.
We do have some advantages
Far lower density of population Thanks to the considerable generosity of the Great British taxpayer and Barnett differentials a slightly better funded health system. A less mobile population with fewer international visitors per capita. Fewer intergenerational households (which is obviously connected with our very small percentage of immigrants). A smaller number of prats on the average Italian ski slope.
There are probably others.
My experience was that everyone (in my circle anyway) took lockdown extremely seriously from the start in March, through April and most of May. Since the beginning of June, however, it has fallen apart and is now a rather poor joke.
Partly right, but high pop density in Greater Glasgow (half the nation’s pop).
Bollocks. Scotland has been getting fleeced for centuries.
Valid point.
Probably correct, but I haven’t seen stats. Scots tend to have close-knit, inter-generational extended families in a way I suspect has largely died out down south.
Yes, we have far fewer “conspicuous consumption” wankers.
Having been out all afternoon and having thought about it for a bit, is the real genius in today’s speech from the PM that he’s only spending £5bn - and that there’s going to be a similar announcement of many small things every month for the next four years?
We had years of nonsense like that under Blair. It’ll get old very quickly.
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
Why don't the EU take control of it's members Health Service so there is the same standard of delivery across the region? There could be FOM for Health workers, the richer countries could help pay for the poorer members to have new hospitals etc
An EU NHS would probably be very popular with its members
As I said, if it makes you feel better to ignore what was transparently obvious then and now who am I to rub the truth in your face.
But to say that Farage was not front and centre of the Leave campaign is just mind-bogglingly idiotic. And of all things, you are not an idiot. Tyndall, yes, an idiot. You, no you are not.
"Without Boris, Farage would have been a much more prominent face on TV during the crucial final weeks, probably the most prominent face. (We had to use Boris as leverage with the BBC to keep Farage off and even then they nearly screwed us as ITV did.) It is extremely plausible that this would have lost us over 600,000 vital middle class votes."
"Farage put off millions of (middle class in particular) voters who wanted to leave the EU but who were very clear in market research that a major obstacle to voting Leave was ‘I don’t want to vote for Farage, I’m not like that’. He also put off many prominent business people from supporting us. Over and over they would say ‘I agree with you the EU is a disaster and we should get out but I just cannot be on the same side as a guy who makes comments about people with HIV’."
The problem for Topping is that the only way he can reconcile himself with the fact Remain lost is by claiming it was all about xenophobia and of course he believes Farage is his perfect example of that. If it turns out that actually it was lots of other reasons to do with the basic fundamental democratic problems of the EU that won the argument then he has nothing left. That is why he is so desperate to claim it was all about Nigel.
Paul O'Flynn: "We had two campaigns - Johnson, etc for the middle classes; and Farage for the working class"
Not by design and certainly not in the eyes of Vote Leave. You might as well have said that the Liverpool Liberals or the Libertarian Party also had campaigns. They certainly campaigned on their own terms but they had no official status and did not guide the campaign to victory. Unlike Vote Leave.
They were both instrumental in securing victory for leave.
On the upside, Hong Kong money is already flooding into the London property market, so if Hongkers entirely collapses under quasi-Nazi law, it might actually maintain the value of my pied a terre, so there's always that
Whenever I think of Cummings and the civil service, I am reminded of a great Buffett quote:
When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a poor reputation, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.
And that's because brilliant people often think that changing things is simply a matter of a few reforms here, and changing a few people there. The reality is that there are more than 300,000 civil servants. There will be things done in odd ways for good reasons. And the things will be done long after the odd reasons have been long forgotten (but not, maybe, gone away).
I am also reminded of something Joel Spolksy wrote about rewriting code - and I'm paraphrasing here - old code looks bad, it looks ugly, it looks inefficient, and it always looks like a great idea to throw it away and write it again. But all those ugly hacks in there - they're usually there for a reason. And when you start over, those reasons are forgotten.
I'm a business person. And my mantra is iteration. Get any old shit out as fast as you can. And then have a regular series of small revisions. Every week change something small. Does it make things better? Nope, throw it away and go back to the old way. It work? Great, do more of it. I live by A/B testing not by brilliant planning and brilliant managing. Because nothing is as useful as real world experience. No matter how clever you think you are - and I'm sure Cummings is extremely clever - the real world is still more complex.
Big bang reforms, like with the NHS IT system, are apt to be expensive failures. Set small goals, but have short deadlines. Have a vague general idea about the way you want to go, but get there as a series of 100 small steps, not one giant leap.
Geniuses, though, like not just reform but revolution. Their record is not great.
There's a lot to agree with there, however, a lot of the advancement depends on speed of iteration and the issue is that the public sector moves at a snail's pace. Even releasing a 0.01 version increment will need to go through 17 layers of public sector management for approval and by the time it gets to a release candidate whatever iteration was included will be completely bastardised.
In private industry nimble development makes a lot of sense it makes absolutely no sense in the public sector because there is so much inertia and so many different cross purpose agendas which completely fuck up any kind of direction.
The public sector is just a complete disaster zone that eats up good ideas and turns them into middle of the road nothingness. It does genuinely need a big bang to shock them out of their complacency.
Let's have another Scottish independence referendum next year and find out what voters there think about the issue. It's stupid to argue that Brexit hasn't changed anything since the last one in 2014.
(Postal ballots could cause there to be no result on the night).
Trump can refuse to concede till the last ballot is counted if he likes. Just delays the inevitable. If he refuses to leave the Oval Office once he's lost he'll be heading out in cuffs.
Whenever I think of Cummings and the civil service, I am reminded of a great Buffett quote:
When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a poor reputation, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.
And that's because brilliant people often think that changing things is simply a matter of a few reforms here, and changing a few people there. The reality is that there are more than 300,000 civil servants. There will be things done in odd ways for good reasons. And the things will be done long after the odd reasons have been long forgotten (but not, maybe, gone away).
I am also reminded of something Joel Spolksy wrote about rewriting code - and I'm paraphrasing here - old code looks bad, it looks ugly, it looks inefficient, and it always looks like a great idea to throw it away and write it again. But all those ugly hacks in there - they're usually there for a reason. And when you start over, those reasons are forgotten.
I'm a business person. And my mantra is iteration. Get any old shit out as fast as you can. And then have a regular series of small revisions. Every week change something small. Does it make things better? Nope, throw it away and go back to the old way. It work? Great, do more of it. I live by A/B testing not by brilliant planning and brilliant managing. Because nothing is as useful as real world experience. No matter how clever you think you are - and I'm sure Cummings is extremely clever - the real world is still more complex.
Big bang reforms, like with the NHS IT system, are apt to be expensive failures. Set small goals, but have short deadlines. Have a vague general idea about the way you want to go, but get there as a series of 100 small steps, not one giant leap.
Geniuses, though, like not just reform but revolution. Their record is not great.
There's a lot to agree with there, however, a lot of the advancement depends on speed of iteration and the issue is that the public sector moves at a snail's pace. Even releasing a 0.01 version increment will need to go through 17 layers of public sector management for approval and by the time it gets to a release candidate whatever iteration was included will be completely bastardised.
In private industry nimble development makes a lot of sense it makes absolutely no sense in the public sector because there is so much inertia and so many different cross purpose agendas which completely fuck up any kind of direction.
The public sector is just a complete disaster zone that eats up good ideas and turns them into middle of the road nothingness. It does genuinely need a big bang to shock them out of their complacency.
+1, well said.
Doubly so having watched the civil service of another country in recent years, for whom the delivery of at least a pilot is way more important than the initial announcement, and anyone getting in the way of a project is immediately sidelined by the higher-ups.
The CS reform is long overdue in the U.K., they’ve become far too accustomed to getting in the way of the government, as opposed to assisting them in the achievement of their aims. The constant gold-plating of incoming EU legislation is what the incumbent mandarins all believe in and live for.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I agree. True liking for the EU was (sadly imo) not widespread.
They go low we go high would not have worked.
So we had to go low too - and it still didn't work.
But Vote Leave went high and that's what won me over.
It wasn't Farage banging on about immigrants that won it, it was Johnson, Gove etc giving a positive image about what we could do outside of Europe. It was Johnson's sunny optimism that won it.
Philip, they BOTH won it. They combined to win it. Johnson was key. Farage was key. Both strands - immigration and sovereignty - were needed. This is undeniable. If you're going to deny it it will have to become yet another statement - number 8 it will be - on the list of your absurdities that I maintain and occasionally publish. And I know you don't want that. As so often it's perhaps a language thing. When you say "won it" you mean won YOUR vote. Fine. And Farage won other people's votes. Plenty of them.
EDIT - and massive hats off for saying "Johnson" rather than "Boris". That is huge in my book.
No, as I said Farage's bloc were on side for Leave come what may. No matter how the campaign went they were going to vote Leave, so the campaigning made no difference to them.
Farage seemed to think he could win the referendum just on migration and bringing on sufficient voters but it was going to be high turnout either way.
What Johnson did was swing sufficient numbers of voters from Remain or abstaining to Leave. Every single vote swung from Remain to Leave is worth 2 votes - one fewer for Remain and one more for Leave.
Farage's bloc were in the bag already. It was Johnson that won it by bringing Leave from a minority to a majority.
But "Farage's bloc" cannot be divorced from Farage. He is one of the key architects of Brexit. He devoted his political life to it and it paid off. You must accept this undeniable truth or it's going on the list.
I acknowledge that truth but its moot.
Its like with trying to get a Conservative majority and look at the posters here. @HYUFD makes a song and dance about the fact that he has only ever voted Tory and whatever the Tory line is [or through his twisted thinking he thinks it is] that is what he is parroting. HYUFD is a vote in the blue column no matter what.
To get a Tory majority requires people like Big_G and others who might vote Tory or might vote Lab to vote Tory.
The problem with being an extremist is you can be taken for granted.
so his u-turn wasn;t based on a conviction that BLM is a poor advocate for the cause of black people?
If they need private polling to tell them that the man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus doesn't want Churchill's statue torn down by a mob then Labour are in even more trouble than we thought.
I think OGH may be barking up the wrong tree here. It seems to me that TM was primarily upset that her friend and former colleague has been sacked.
I don't think it is in her nature to be disloyal in the long term and even if it was she doesn't have many friends left in the Commons (the lack of clubbability was part of her problem).
I had a look at the wikipedia article for the Tory one nation group and it is really noticeable how many jumped or were pushed at the last election. I count there are 26 left:
(Postal ballots could cause there to be no result on the night).
Trump can refuse to concede till the last ballot is counted if he likes. Just delays the inevitable. If he refuses to leave the Oval Office once he's lost he'll be heading out in cuffs.
The Electoral College will meet and elect the President, who will be sworn in on 20th Jan - regardless of anything a losing incumbent might try and do to get in the way.
Famously, every Clinton staffer in the WH removed the “W” key from their computer keyboard on the way out. It didn’t stop the White House from having a bunch of new keyboards delivered the next day.
I have doubts whenever anyone says "hearing rumours about private polling"
Besides, you don't need private polling. There is plenty of public polling showing that the British voter doesn't like all this malarkey: 67% think it is "PC gone mad"
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
Why don't the EU take control of it's members Health Service so there is the same standard of delivery across the region? There could be FOM for Health workers, the richer countries could help pay for the poorer members to have new hospitals etc
An EU NHS would probably be very popular with its members
That'll certainly feature in Verhofstadht's plans.
It's lots of stuff. One of the central tenets is systemic racism: the idea that white societies are intrinsically racist, by definition, and white people themselves are always racist, even if you cannot see it, because of their white privilege.
It's a toxix concept, which divides everyone, and teaching it to kids is just mind-blowing
That letter from that head teacher is beyond belief. Where do you begin with this venomous nonsense?
We might look back on Covid-19 with level of mixed feelings actually. Tragic though it has been it's woken us up to China about 10 years earlier than it otherwise would have done.
Even though it's going to cost us a fortune that time is priceless. China isn't quite unstoppable yet.
It was Scotland all over again: "It's really scary outside the EU. Do you want to risk it?"
It was a terrible strategy in Scotland (where it nearly lost), and it was a terrible strategy in the EU referendum.
That being said, @LadyG is correct that "take back control" was a brilliant slogan. Because it managed to unite those who felt the EU was too protectionist, with those who felt it was not protectionist enough. The Leave campaign was also very smart with regards to £350m, because Remain (bless their cotton socks) spent most of the time saying "it's not really £350m, it's *only* £250m".
I have a friend with an unusually bright son, interested in politics, who was twelve years old at the time of the referendum.
The boy was Remain all the way, until he heard the slogan "Take Back Control". He immediately switched. Who wouldn't want to Take Back Control?
Maybe Remain would have been better to be unashamedly Euronationalist.
Building a community of nations. Working together to solve our common problems. Europe is stronger when it works together. Continuing the work of Churchill. Etc.
Ultimately, Remain was scared to put forward a positive vision, and saw Project Fear as the best way forward. Who wants to lose their job, after all? The truth is that Project Fear barely worked in Scotland. It was arrogant beyond belief to think it would be enough in the UK.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of people who on balance would prefer to remain in the EU for economic reasons, but the market for Euronationalism has always been much smaller. Even many avid Remainers shy away from the more federalist elements. Remain ran Project Fear because it was the best selling point for the product they were offering.
I agree. True liking for the EU was (sadly imo) not widespread.
They go low we go high would not have worked.
So we had to go low too - and it still didn't work.
But Vote Leave went high and that's what won me over.
It wasn't Farage banging on about immigrants that won it, it was Johnson, Gove etc giving a positive image about what we could do outside of Europe. It was Johnson's sunny optimism that won it.
Philip, they BOTH won it. They combined to win it. Johnson was key. Farage was key. Both strands - immigration and sovereignty - were needed. This is undeniable. If you're going to deny it it will have to become yet another statement - number 8 it will be - on the list of your absurdities that I maintain and occasionally publish. And I know you don't want that. As so often it's perhaps a language thing. When you say "won it" you mean won YOUR vote. Fine. And Farage won other people's votes. Plenty of them.
EDIT - and massive hats off for saying "Johnson" rather than "Boris". That is huge in my book.
No, as I said Farage's bloc were on side for Leave come what may. No matter how the campaign went they were going to vote Leave, so the campaigning made no difference to them.
Farage seemed to think he could win the referendum just on migration and bringing on sufficient voters but it was going to be high turnout either way.
What Johnson did was swing sufficient numbers of voters from Remain or abstaining to Leave. Every single vote swung from Remain to Leave is worth 2 votes - one fewer for Remain and one more for Leave.
Farage's bloc were in the bag already. It was Johnson that won it by bringing Leave from a minority to a majority.
But "Farage's bloc" cannot be divorced from Farage. He is one of the key architects of Brexit. He devoted his political life to it and it paid off. You must accept this undeniable truth or it's going on the list.
I acknowledge that truth but its moot.
Its like with trying to get a Conservative majority and look at the posters here. @HYUFD makes a song and dance about the fact that he has only ever voted Tory and whatever the Tory line is [or through his twisted thinking he thinks it is] that is what he is parroting. HYUFD is a vote in the blue column no matter what.
To get a Tory majority requires people like Big_G and others who might vote Tory or might vote Lab to vote Tory.
The problem with being an extremist is you can be taken for granted.
I find this amazing from Mr Smithson, given the constant attacks on TMAy on here and elsewhere. Why is she suddenly wonderful. Is it because she is useful as the means by which to attack Boris?
Whenever I think of Cummings and the civil service, I am reminded of a great Buffett quote:
When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a poor reputation, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.
And that's because brilliant people often think that changing things is simply a matter of a few reforms here, and changing a few people there. The reality is that there are more than 300,000 civil servants. There will be things done in odd ways for good reasons. And the things will be done long after the odd reasons have been long forgotten (but not, maybe, gone away).
I am also reminded of something Joel Spolksy wrote about rewriting code - and I'm paraphrasing here - old code looks bad, it looks ugly, it looks inefficient, and it always looks like a great idea to throw it away and write it again. But all those ugly hacks in there - they're usually there for a reason. And when you start over, those reasons are forgotten.
I'm a business person. And my mantra is iteration. Get any old shit out as fast as you can. And then have a regular series of small revisions. Every week change something small. Does it make things better? Nope, throw it away and go back to the old way. It work? Great, do more of it. I live by A/B testing not by brilliant planning and brilliant managing. Because nothing is as useful as real world experience. No matter how clever you think you are - and I'm sure Cummings is extremely clever - the real world is still more complex.
Big bang reforms, like with the NHS IT system, are apt to be expensive failures. Set small goals, but have short deadlines. Have a vague general idea about the way you want to go, but get there as a series of 100 small steps, not one giant leap.
Geniuses, though, like not just reform but revolution. Their record is not great.
There's a lot to agree with there, however, a lot of the advancement depends on speed of iteration and the issue is that the public sector moves at a snail's pace. Even releasing a 0.01 version increment will need to go through 17 layers of public sector management for approval and by the time it gets to a release candidate whatever iteration was included will be completely bastardised.
In private industry nimble development makes a lot of sense it makes absolutely no sense in the public sector because there is so much inertia and so many different cross purpose agendas which completely fuck up any kind of direction.
The public sector is just a complete disaster zone that eats up good ideas and turns them into middle of the road nothingness. It does genuinely need a big bang to shock them out of their complacency.
+1, well said.
Doubly so having watched the civil service of another country in recent years, for whom the delivery of at least a pilot is way more important than the initial announcement, and anyone getting in the way of a project is immediately sidelined by the higher-ups.
The CS reform is long overdue in the U.K., they’ve become far too accustomed to getting in the way of the government, as opposed to assisting them in the achievement of their aims. The constant gold-plating of incoming EU legislation is what the incumbent mandarins all believe in and live for.
I spent 13 yrs in the Civil Service and left after I had been given a temporary promotion to set up a new Dept when, after finishing the job, they took my promotion away from me and gave the job of running the Dept to a time serving idiot two grades above my permanent grade. Driving me out was the best thing the Service ever did for me.
Indeed. To say Remain was really bad, you have to believe it was led by clueless people. It was not. Cameron and Osborne have their faults, but they are far from stupid.
The main sin of Remain was probably complacency (always a problem with Cameron). They thought they were going to be facing a campaign led by Nigel Farage, Bill Cash and John Redwood, which would indeed have been a walkover; Instead they got Dom Cummings, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.
They didn't readjust quickly enough. They didn't anticipate problems.
It wasn't complacency, Cameron worked his socks off. However, he was trying to ensure that the Conservative Party didn't destroy itself in the process, so he countermanded some of the attacks on Boris, Gove etc which the Remain campaign wanted to run. An admirable scruple, but unfortunately as it turned out a foolish one, helping both to lose the referendum and ultimately to destroy the very thing he was trying to preserve.
Tim Shipman's book on this really is a masterpiece of political instant history.
The thing that astonished me about the Remain campaign was that it was almost completely negative. I kept waiting for the Remain party political broadcast which featured rousing evocations of European heritage and music in order to make people feel proud of being part of the continent. It never happened. I realise now that it probably would have offended the nostrums of political correctness to do that type of broadcast.
Why don't the EU take control of it's members Health Service so there is the same standard of delivery across the region? There could be FOM for Health workers, the richer countries could help pay for the poorer members to have new hospitals etc
An EU NHS would probably be very popular with its members
That'll certainly feature in Verhofstadht's plans.
I spent 13 yrs in the Civil Service and left after I had been given a temporary promotion to set up a new Dept when, after finishing the job, they took my promotion away from me and gave the job of running the Dept to a time serving idiot two grades above my permanent grade. Driving me out was the best thing the Service ever did for me.
SO is that when you became a freelance grammarian & curmudgeon?
I have doubts whenever anyone says "hearing rumours about private polling"
Besides, you don't need private polling. There is plenty of public polling showing that the British voter doesn't like all this malarkey: 67% think it is "PC gone mad"
It's lots of stuff. One of the central tenets is systemic racism: the idea that white societies are intrinsically racist, by definition, and white people themselves are always racist, even if you cannot see it, because of their white privilege.
It's a toxix concept, which divides everyone, and teaching it to kids is just mind-blowing
That letter from that head teacher is beyond belief. Where do you begin with this venomous nonsense?
It also delivers poor or disadvantaged white votes straight into hands of Farage or a far far worse successor.
It's phenomenally stupid. But, then again, left-wing white liberals are phenomenal dickheads.
Comments
People still want to say "ah fuck it" and go to the pub on Saturday?
Would have had the piss taken out of them with that Fenton! Fenton!!! video.....
For example Blair or Cameron standing firm on finances instead of choosing 'posture, surrender and lie' strategies.
And, not only that, but it's not an EU matter. For non-EEA citizens, it is the French government who decide who has a right to be resident.
Astute and spot-on. And LEAVE is what you say to a bad date or cheating spouse.
But being on the winning side, and making the French roll over on state aid, is not a story.
Us being outvoted - which happened surprisingly little - does on the other hand make headlines.
Boris Johnson: Economy speech fact-checked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53236921
Two other comments by her re: race relations:
1. That she wondered what little poor Black kids thought, when they watched the TV and saw all the great things that other people had and they did not, and maybe never would; she had grown up poor (in days before TV) and could truly FEEL what THEY must have felt.
2. That she did NOT have a problem with inter-racial relationships, except that she worried and feared how their multi-racial children would be treated. She was a good Democrat (my father was NOT) and I'm 99.46% sure that she'd have voted for Obama. More important, she'd have felt happy and relieved that he was proof positive that a black-white boy could make it OK in the USA.
Far lower density of population
Thanks to the considerable generosity of the Great British taxpayer and Barnett differentials a slightly better funded health system.
A less mobile population with fewer international visitors per capita.
Fewer intergenerational households (which is obviously connected with our very small percentage of immigrants).
A smaller number of prats on the average Italian ski slope.
There are probably others.
My experience was that everyone (in my circle anyway) took lockdown extremely seriously from the start in March, through April and most of May. Since the beginning of June, however, it has fallen apart and is now a rather poor joke.
I agree more currency might have been made of that: "Top 5 UK wins", or similar.
The 1975 In campaign was much more resonant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsgcQFhBJXQ
Remain simply had nothing to offer except fear and people started laughing at them rather than being afraid.
Personally, I think there is far too much zero sum game nonsense in international politics generally. That's the whole Trump approach - the view that, if your partners have got a good deal, you've got a bad one. That isn't true at all - a good deal is a good deal for all parties.
So, over time, from the late 80s onwards, voters gradually cut the legs out from under the consensus that British political party leaders had of the merits of EU membership.
Admittedly, that does require them to do something and pay a fee, but I doubt selling the house is necessary.
Farage seemed to think he could win the referendum just on migration and bringing on sufficient voters but it was going to be high turnout either way.
What Johnson did was swing sufficient numbers of voters from Remain or abstaining to Leave. Every single vote swung from Remain to Leave is worth 2 votes - one fewer for Remain and one more for Leave.
Farage's bloc were in the bag already. It was Johnson that won it by bringing Leave from a minority to a majority.
But, they didn't.
My grandmother too. She would have taken the view that the British Empire was in general, a good thing, but considered apartheid and Jim Crow to be unChristian.
Over half of English hospital deaths happened by 15th April.
Almost all of those people were likely infected before the lockdown started.
How much virus each area had in March was likely the key determinant.
The trouble was that far too many hearts had been lost on the EU over the preceding 25 years.
It was no use just blaming British tabloids for that, as far too many European politicians (even today) do channelling the self-awareness of Hillary Clinton.
It was their own rhetoric and action that did for it.
My Dad certainly laughed (and told) one or two racist jokes, but he also upbraided a fellow commuter who (rudely) once asked an unfamiliar black man who turned up at the railway station at 7am one morning ["what are YOU doing here?" etc.] and told him he absolutely couldn't say that. And one of his closest friends is Japanese.
People are complex.
No-one can trust China, and the time to bale out is now.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278030222361853952?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278029644231585800?s=20
Dark, dark, dark shit.
Bollocks. Scotland has been getting fleeced for centuries.
Valid point.
Probably correct, but I haven’t seen stats. Scots tend to have close-knit, inter-generational extended families in a way I suspect has largely died out down south.
Yes, we have far fewer “conspicuous consumption” wankers.
Bollocks. Scotland has been getting fleeced for centuries.
Valid point.
Probably correct, but I haven’t seen stats. Scots tend to have close-knit, inter-generational extended families in a way I suspect has largely died out down south.
Yes, we have far fewer “conspicuous consumption” wankers.
You have other types of wanker though.
An EU NHS would probably be very popular with its members
Yet not hardly a peep out of Muslim countries
This is the latest Chinese cunning plan
https://news.sky.com/story/china-forcing-birth-control-on-uighur-women-to-curb-muslim-population-major-report-finds-12017287
In private industry nimble development makes a lot of sense it makes absolutely no sense in the public sector because there is so much inertia and so many different cross purpose agendas which completely fuck up any kind of direction.
The public sector is just a complete disaster zone that eats up good ideas and turns them into middle of the road nothingness. It does genuinely need a big bang to shock them out of their complacency.
What would happen if Trump refused defeat?
https://www.newstatesman.com/what-happens-if-trump-refuses-electoral-defeat-2020-lawrence-douglas-will-he-go
(Postal ballots could cause there to be no result on the night).
Doubly so having watched the civil service of another country in recent years, for whom the delivery of at least a pilot is way more important than the initial announcement, and anyone getting in the way of a project is immediately sidelined by the higher-ups.
The CS reform is long overdue in the U.K., they’ve become far too accustomed to getting in the way of the government, as opposed to assisting them in the achievement of their aims. The constant gold-plating of incoming EU legislation is what the incumbent mandarins all believe in and live for.
Its like with trying to get a Conservative majority and look at the posters here. @HYUFD makes a song and dance about the fact that he has only ever voted Tory and whatever the Tory line is [or through his twisted thinking he thinks it is] that is what he is parroting. HYUFD is a vote in the blue column no matter what.
To get a Tory majority requires people like Big_G and others who might vote Tory or might vote Lab to vote Tory.
The problem with being an extremist is you can be taken for granted.
https://twitter.com/fragrantfeline/status/1277957807065542659?s=20
Famously, every Clinton staffer in the WH removed the “W” key from their computer keyboard on the way out. It didn’t stop the White House from having a bunch of new keyboards delivered the next day.
Besides, you don't need private polling. There is plenty of public polling showing that the British voter doesn't like all this malarkey: 67% think it is "PC gone mad"
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1277669048420089860?s=20
It's a toxix concept, which divides everyone, and teaching it to kids is just mind-blowing
That letter from that head teacher is beyond belief. Where do you begin with this venomous nonsense?
When I look at the resources for "older secondary school children" most of that is already taught.
Most of the actual content is small beer.
You can tell it's written by a left-wing liberal.
We might look back on Covid-19 with level of mixed feelings actually. Tragic though it has been it's woken us up to China about 10 years earlier than it otherwise would have done.
Even though it's going to cost us a fortune that time is priceless. China isn't quite unstoppable yet.
If Biden wins in MO it really would be a landslide.
SO is that when you became a freelance grammarian & curmudgeon?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1278040506908446721?s=19
It's phenomenally stupid. But, then again, left-wing white liberals are phenomenal dickheads.