politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB/Polling Matters: Pollsters. hedge funds, Heathrow and w
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB/Polling Matters: Pollsters. hedge funds, Heathrow and why is Blair so noisy and Cameron so quiet?
On this week’s PB / Polling Matters podcast, Keiran Pedley and Leo Barasi look at a recent Bloomberg story investigating links between hedge funds and pollsters on the day of the EU referendum, public opinion on Heathrow and the environment and ask what Blair hopes to achieve with his latest intervention (and why David Cameron seems to be so quiet).
Comments
-
Sigh. Curse of the new thread.0
-
The podcast was interesting in its attempt to explain the Bloomberg exit poll story, dividing it into three facets. And in asking where is Cameron, the suggestion that he places party unity above Brexit echoes the criticism of his running of the Remain campaign but there is no real evidence.0
-
Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.0 -
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!0 -
fpt and very ot:
There is an interesting argument that the massive and unexpected rise in computing power is the reason why manned space technology is *behind* where people thought it would be in the 1950s and 1960s.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but computing etc is miles ahead of what was imagined.Pulpstar said:Space vehicle engineering tech is horribly behind where it should have been. I'm glad Musk is finally righting that wrong
(Snip)
In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was expected that there would soon be large (by current standards) space stations in orbit, each with perhaps a dozen or more people on board. The US Air Force's cancelled Manned Orbital Laboratory or Russia's Almaz were essentially prototypes of this.
The reason is reconnaissance and communications: if you wanted to spy on something on the ground, the technology at the time required you to launch a rocket, fly the satellite over, and the satellite would then drop its film payload, which was caught in mid-air and taken for processing and interpretation (e.g. the US's Corona program). This was not time-responsive (if you wanted to examine something quickly, the chances are you didn't have an unused satellite ready) and very expensive.
So the idea was to have manned satellites capable of significant changes in orbital plane, where the crew would develop film and interpret the images in space.
Likewise, communications: anything that required communications would have to use valves or the newfangled transistors. The early technology was unreliable and its use in space uncertain, so it was assumed that communications satellties would have people on board, changing valves or transistors and crystals.
Both these uses for man in space: reconnaissance and communications, became redundant after the integrated circuit became reliable: we could digitally scan images from space and send them down via encrypted links, allowing reconnaissance satellites to stay up for years, and communications satellites are far more capable. And without people in orbit, we haven't really ahd the excess manpower to work out other productive reasons to have them up there.
So we have massively more unmanned satellites doing things than expected, but find it very hard to find a reason for manned programs.0 -
I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.0
-
Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.
A couple of points:
1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.
2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?0 -
There's a difference between pollution released at x thousand feet, and at low levels during takeoff (and landing). The latter has much more impact on people on the surface and is not affected by planes in the stack.Sandpit said:Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.
A couple of points:
1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.
2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?0 -
The air quality around airports isn't really affected by aircraft circulating way up in the sky. It's the ground operations that generate the local pollution.Sandpit said:Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.
A couple of points:
1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.
2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?0 -
Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.0 -
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
0 -
Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!0 -
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.0 -
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.0 -
Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.IanB2 said:
Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!0 -
I think it's also about distance. Cameron still has plenty of friends in top-level politics and probably still has plenty of behind the scenes influence. Blair is far removed, as is Major.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
0 -
The Belgium manager disagrees with the pb panel (as possibly does the German coach since yesterday's defeat followed an allegedly morale-boosting win).Sandpit said:
Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.IanB2 said:
Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
Roberto Martínez struck a different tone to Gareth Southgate by claiming winning their final group game against England is not a priority and insisting protecting his players from injury and suspension was of greater importance.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/27/roberto-martinez-belgium-world-cup-beating-england-not-priority
Whatever Southgate decides, England's deeper squad means we should beat Belgium.0 -
Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.0
-
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
0 -
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
0 -
Tbh all of the teams have looked weak at different times. France feels like the sleeping giant to me, their team has an insane amount of talent, and I wouldn't want to face them.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
As for resting players, the game against Panama was played at a walking pace. I'd rather we fielded our strongest team and gave them 90 minutes practice playing against a decent opposition that will have more of the ball. And remember we are still new to the 3-5-2 formation also.0 -
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=190 -
To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.0 -
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
0 -
I assume they are going to begin construction in Ireland imminently?Foxy said:
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=190 -
It would be highly amusing to watch them try.RobD said:
I assume they are going to begin construction in Ireland imminently?Foxy said:
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=190 -
The subsequent match against Spain remains the only football match I have ever been to.Sandpit said:
Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.IanB2 said:
Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!0 -
I think it is important that many in the squad have not played a competitive game for a month or more. It is possible that some of them will need to come through into the first team through injury or loss of form and a run out would sharpen them up.rkrkrk said:
Tbh all of the teams have looked weak at different times. France feels like the sleeping giant to me, their team has an insane amount of talent, and I wouldn't want to face them.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
As for resting players, the game against Panama was played at a walking pace. I'd rather we fielded our strongest team and gave them 90 minutes practice playing against a decent opposition that will have more of the ball. And remember we are still new to the 3-5-2 formation also.
Whilst I think, like most people, that England are more dangerous with Rashford on the pitch it is really at the back that England have looked vulnerable. I would want to try at least a couple of different defenders to see how they go, possibly a different goalkeeper as well. I would like to see Rose and Alexander-Arnold play, possibly Jones as well.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Sandpit, although partly complacent (a hallmark of both sides), Leave did at least have some positive sentiment behind it.
I do think people want a positive case for X to be made.0 -
The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.JosiasJessop said:
To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.0 -
Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...0 -
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.0 -
Even two years on, quite basic questions sit unanswered. The government's answer at administrative level seems to be to advertise yet another batch of jobs for experts in the hope of recruiting someone who might actually have a clue. Meanwhile most of the politicians steer away from the ultimate poisoned chalice.DecrepitJohnL said:
The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.JosiasJessop said:
To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.0 -
The Indyref was nearly lost because Labour politicians struggled to say anything positive about a UK government run by the Tories. It was only the just emerging Ruth Davidson and latterly Gordon Brown who actually enthused about being British. As a member of the campaign it drove me wild. I am genuinely proud to be British, it's an important part of who I am and I met many who felt the same way.JosiasJessop said:
To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.
I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.0 -
I'll believe it when the EU starts planning an emergency budget for the £40 billion shortfall.Foxy said:
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
That is going to concentrate some minds.0 -
A commission to decide what the Brexit option was would have been pointless, as 'leave' means different things to different leavers - which is exactly why we are in such a mess now.DecrepitJohnL said:
The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.JosiasJessop said:
To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.
One side or the other - perhaps even several- would have cried foul, that the Brexit option the commission chose was an 'establishment stitch-up'. This is the same reason why lazy Europhobes wanted Cameron and the government to state what 'leave' meant: because it would give them something else to argue against. He didn't fall into that trap.
More importantly, leave didn't want a settled view; as they only way they won the referendum was by offering everything to everyone: a 'keep-out-the-foreigner' Brexit for the gormless, and a 'business-friendly' Brexit for those worried about the economy. These are mutually incompatible, but without a set view they could sell both of these to the electorate.0 -
You and I may think that, but the evidence from the last few decades appears to be that negative political campaigns are winners - with the possible recent exception of Donald Trump.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Sandpit, although partly complacent (a hallmark of both sides), Leave did at least have some positive sentiment behind it.
I do think people want a positive case for X to be made.
That said, it’s a big ask to hold a referendum where the government is arguing for the status quo. It will almost certainly invite a huge number of people unhappy with the status quo to vote against it, irrespective of what’s actually on the ballot paper.0 -
Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.DavidL said:(Snip)
The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.
I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.0 -
Is it really a GBP40bn shortfall in the near term? Many of the expenses - like pensions - are decades in the future, some relate to contingent liabilities.MarqueeMark said:
I'll believe it when the EU starts planning an emergency budget for the £40 billion shortfall.Foxy said:
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
That is going to concentrate some minds.
If we crash out early next year, which we won't, the "bill" from a payments perspective will be perhaps GBP15bn, which is a pittance compared to the effect on EU - or indeed UK - GDP from a no deal Brexit.0 -
Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.
As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.
A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.
Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.0 -
Yes, which is why I’m happy to see him arguing the other side of my own opinion! If he ever agrees with me on anything, I’ll want him banished to one of his many houses, never to be seen in public again!rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.0 -
You obviously don't like democratic votesGardenwalker said:Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.
As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.
A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.
Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.0 -
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.0 -
Some did but those were votes remain was never going to win. There were lots more people like me who wondered if it was worth the candle, worth losing Cameron and Osborne over, whether there were more important things to expend our energy on.JosiasJessop said:
Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.DavidL said:(Snip)
The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.
I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.
But the more I looked at what the EU was as an institution, the way it did things and most importantly its direction of travel the more I became persuaded that we should leave. People criticise the incoherence of the Leave vision, and rightly so. But if we had remained what kind of EU did we want to be a part of? Did we want to be at its heart, as per Blair, or in a more associate role hiding behind opt outs? How were we going to resolve the issue of the EZ and QMV? Remain had no answer to these and many other questions. No one really sold a positive vision of what life in the EU would be like in 10-20 years. They deserved to lose.0 -
Here's another Democrat to keep an eye on in November:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6v4CYNSIQ
It seems to me that there are a lot of veteran (as in ex-military) Democratic candidates this time around.0 -
In the bottom half of the draw the big teams can be avoided till the final !IanB2 said:
Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.Foxy said:
I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.DecrepitJohnL said:Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.
After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!
I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.
As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!0 -
A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.Gardenwalker said:Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.
As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.
A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.
Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.0 -
Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.Sandpit said:
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.
(There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)0 -
I'd take a carefree and easy going democracy over a serious one. I'd also prefer one where the constitution develops rather than is held as sacred. And we have had plenty of democratic debate over Europe, including having a major party go to the country on a platform of leaving the EU.Elliot said:
A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.Gardenwalker said:Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.
As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.
A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.
Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.0 -
“Cameron is the worst prime minister since Lord North” Paxman. A total abject failure. He should live a Trappist penitent existence in his little caravan of shame.0
-
I find that a slightly odd argument, as leave had no answers to the massive contradiction - in fact a lie - in their offerings.DavidL said:
Some did but those were votes remain was never going to win. There were lots more people like me who wondered if it was worth the candle, worth losing Cameron and Osborne over, whether there were more important things to expend our energy on.JosiasJessop said:
Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.DavidL said:(Snip)
The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.
I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.
But the more I looked at what the EU was as an institution, the way it did things and most importantly its direction of travel the more I became persuaded that we should leave. People criticise the incoherence of the Leave vision, and rightly so. But if we had remained what kind of EU did we want to be a part of? Did we want to be at its heart, as per Blair, or in a more associate role hiding behind opt outs? How were we going to resolve the issue of the EZ and QMV? Remain had no answer to these and many other questions. No one really sold a positive vision of what life in the EU would be like in 10-20 years. They deserved to lose.
If you didn't see a 'positive' vision of what life in the EU would be like, then either you were not listening, or you did not see it as positive.
Given your recently-stated views on the migrants in the Med, I'm guessing the latter.0 -
There's much to be said for Ireland's system of democracy with their STV dail and multiple referenda. Ours is moribund in comparisonElliot said:
A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.Gardenwalker said:Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.
As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.
A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.
Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.0 -
What a pitiful contribution.JosiasJessop said:Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.
0 -
a somewhat onesided analysis Mr JJosiasJessop said:
Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.Sandpit said:
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.
(There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)
both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse0 -
Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.MarqueeMark said:
What a pitiful contribution.JosiasJessop said:Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.
Buy you evidently differ. 0 -
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.0 -
Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?Alanbrooke said:
a somewhat onesided analysis Mr JJosiasJessop said:
Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.Sandpit said:
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.IanB2 said:
Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.PeterC said:I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.
(There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)
both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
(Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)0 -
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
I wonder which politician, with a huge majority could have improved the democratic state of the UK. But chose not to.
Answers on a postcard0 -
How about "the EU spread shit over democracy"......JosiasJessop said:
Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.MarqueeMark said:
What a pitiful contribution.JosiasJessop said:Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.
Buy you evidently differ.0 -
Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.
Mr. L, that's the problem with decades of triangulating and then having a binary referendum on the specific topic. There is no centre ground, just two opposing sides, one of which has had supportive words but precise little action for decades.
The Lisbon referendum-that-wasn't is arguably the biggest single reason we voted to leave. Many voters won't have trusted politicians to give us another chance, ever. For that matter, many didn't believe we'd leave even having voted for it.
It's one of the major reasons that May's dithering is so unforgivable. It makes it more economically challenging (due to lack of preparation) to leave without a deal, increasing pressure, on economic grounds, to sign up to whatever the EU wants.
But, politically, if we leave in name only, losing all influence over the EU but remaining ensnared by the red tape of an institution the electorate just voted to leave, there are substantial risks to.
The far left already squats on the Labour front bench, and there's a small but plausible risk of a new far right emerging, its potential enhanced by a departure in name only. [I'm of the view that a takeover approach, as per the lunatic left and Labour, is unlikely to occur with the Conservatives, because their rulebook isn't ridiculous and their MPs actually appear to understand how their own leadership election rules work].0 -
I started the campaign 60-40 for Leave but could have been persuaded to hold my nose and vote RemainJosiasJessop said:
Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?Alanbrooke said:
a somewhat onesided analysis Mr JJosiasJessop said:
Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.Sandpit said:
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it wto remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not thi minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.
(There is interesting wrt this.)
both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
(Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)
I ended about 80-20 for Leave and a sense of regret that some old bonds would be broken
What moved my vote was Osbornes obvious lies and Obama's intervention. Nobody on Remain could put forward a positive argument over a six month period and they all sounded shifty as to the future direction of the EU.
Leave also ran some total crap the £350m I just took as a yeah right and dismissed it. I didn't like Farage but had got used to him as an irritant over the last 10 years. Leave didn't have any strong economic arguments except to say the change will shake things up and thats
what I think we need.
So my 20 per cent shift was 10 for Remain having nothing worth saying and 10 for Leave shaking things up.0 -
Yes and no. In a similar manner, a Scottish nationalist could claim that 'Westminster spreads sh*t over democracy'.MarqueeMark said:
How about "the EU spread shit over democracy"......JosiasJessop said:
Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.MarqueeMark said:
What a pitiful contribution.JosiasJessop said:Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.
Buy you evidently differ.
I don't like the political aspects of the EU, and I particularly don't like the direction the EU was heading. But I could see many advantages in being part of a large, loose group of similar-minded countries in an increasingly globalised world.
IMV we've remover ourselves from the former (which is generally a positive move), but also from the latter, and I am far from sure we will be able to replicate the advantages alone.
I think the main unanswered question for me over the EU is the following: in the modern world, is it really possible to get effective large-scale collaboration between small- and medium-sized countries without the full economic and political union that I personally dislike?0 -
So today Leavers are hating Tony Blair. Yesterday it was the BMA. It must be exhausting keeping all that negative energy pent up, ready to discharge on so many different subjects.
For a group that like to lay claim to patriotism, there's precious little about Britain that they actually like.0 -
Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.0 -
If the EU wants to prepare for tariffs with the UK and the USA, its two biggest export markets, that is up to themFoxy said:
Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.AlastairMeeks said:Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=190 -
In 2001, ten years after she left all you had to do was put a Thatcher wig on Hague to sink his campaign. If you were a Thatcherite then, you were seriously out of fashion.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.
Ten years after leaving office Blair is in a broadly similar state. In ten years time, Blair will come back in fashion a bit. May and co are accelerating the process.
0 -
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.0 -
A centre ground voter at the moment is a Leave voter who wants more money for the NHS and to nationalise the railways but also liked Osborne's inheritance tax cut and hated the dementia tax.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.
Mr. L, that's the problem with decades of triangulating and then having a binary referendum on the specific topic. There is no centre ground, just two opposing sides, one of which has had supportive words but precise little action for decades.
The Lisbon referendum-that-wasn't is arguably the biggest single reason we voted to leave. Many voters won't have trusted politicians to give us another chance, ever. For that matter, many didn't believe we'd leave even having voted for it.
It's one of the major reasons that May's dithering is so unforgivable. It makes it more economically challenging (due to lack of preparation) to leave without a deal, increasing pressure, on economic grounds, to sign up to whatever the EU wants.
But, politically, if we leave in name only, losing all influence over the EU but remaining ensnared by the red tape of an institution the electorate just voted to leave, there are substantial risks to.
The far left already squats on the Labour front bench, and there's a small but plausible risk of a new far right emerging, its potential enhanced by a departure in name only. [I'm of the view that a takeover approach, as per the lunatic left and Labour, is unlikely to occur with the Conservatives, because their rulebook isn't ridiculous and their MPs actually appear to understand how their own leadership election rules work].
They voted for Blair then switched to Cameron in 2010 and have voted Tory ever since0 -
Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or ThatcherJonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....Jonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.
He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.0 -
0
-
Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturnedAlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/10122358351970017280 -
You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.Mortimer said:
As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....Jonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.
He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.0 -
Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.HYUFD said:
Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or ThatcherJonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
"They've underestimated Notting Hill and they've underestimated me."HYUFD said:
Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or ThatcherJonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.TheScreamingEagles said:
Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturnedAlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/10122358351970017280 -
Off-topic:
I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.
Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...0 -
How about reading what I said rather than dreaming about his tainted glory.Jonathan said:
You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.Mortimer said:
As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....Jonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.
He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
To be honest much of his rule was indeed Tory-lite. It almost certainly benefited me financially.
I don't like him because he undermined public trust in politics.0 -
Nah. That’s a line spun, quite successfully, by opponents . Electorate seemed quite happy with him at the time.Mortimer said:
How about reading what I said rather than dreaming about his tainted glory.Jonathan said:
You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.Mortimer said:
As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....Jonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.
He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
To be honest much of his rule was indeed Tory-lite. It almost certainly benefited me financially.
I don't like him because he undermined public trust in politics.
0 -
The Tombstone Group have seen Leaving the EU move from being supported by a tiny minority to a majority, they expect they can do the same with their social conservatism, abortion is just the vanguard.Slackbladder said:
Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.TheScreamingEagles said:
Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturnedAlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1012235835197001728
0 -
Unusual to get a young North Korean woman in a Cambridge pub.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.
Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...0 -
Mr. Jessop, that's essentially the problem the UK faced and which the EU was either unable to understand or unwilling to address. The economic aspect was generally very popular, the political aspect much less so (particularly with QMV giving the eurozone a critical mass).
It's a shame it came to this, as the Lisbon referendum could've offered a very strong opportunity to signal the UK's dislike of the direction of travel, but the alternative was signing up to something about which many people had grave misgivings.0 -
Most likely it will be some form of work permit ultimatelyAlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/10122358351970017280 -
Osborne is little different from Anna Soubry in worldview nowJonathan said:
Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.HYUFD said:
Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or ThatcherJonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
Theresa May looks younger in the flesh?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.
Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...
0 -
You have to admire the chutzpah of Nick Timothy.
https://twitter.com/betapolitics/status/1012219606637989889?s=210 -
They need more socially conservative African and Eastern European immigrants thenTheScreamingEagles said:
The Tombstone Group have seen Leaving the EU move from being supported by a tiny minority to a majority, they expect they can do the same with their social conservatism, abortion is just the vanguard.Slackbladder said:
Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.TheScreamingEagles said:
Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturnedAlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/10122358351970017280 -
It’s a big what if. If he had stayed in the Commons he would have played his cards more closely to his chest. Would have been a leader in waiting (or not waiting by now).HYUFD said:
Osborne is little different from Anna Soubry in worldview nowJonathan said:
Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.HYUFD said:
Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or ThatcherJonathan said:
The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.JackW said:
No.rcs1000 said:
Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?Sandpit said:
So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it.rcs1000 said:
I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.Sandpit said:
Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.Casino_Royale said:Because Cameron has class.
Blair has none.
Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.
I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
Osborne gets the same treatment.0 -
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg et al think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
0 -
That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.0 -
No senior politician has any serious interest in curbing immigration provided they can say we have taken back control. There is enough there to fudge FoM.AlastairMeeks said:The nativists aren't happy:
twitter.com/montie/status/1012235835197001728
0 -
Yes I think there were elements of "right minded people" group think.Jonathan said:
That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
But this was exploded when it became clear Leave would fight almost solely on immigration.0 -
His mistake was not being prepared for Vote Leave running the campaign he thought Leave.EU would run.Jonathan said:
That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
In his wildest dreams he never thought the likes of Gove, Hannan, and Carswell would run a campaign demonising Muslims.
It is common knowledge in Westminster that Gove privately now regrets that campaign.0 -
He clearly already knew about the morons since only a few months before he'd been affecting to want to leave the EU himself unless it was reformed in some unspecified way.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.0 -
Fairly clear his error was in not predicting corbyn would end up as labour leader.Jonathan said:
That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.0 -
Is this the cue for a Dave's Deal discussion?edmundintokyo said:
He clearly already knew about the morons since only a few months before he'd been affecting to want to leave the EU himself unless it was reformed in some unspecified way.TOPPING said:
Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.Jonathan said:
He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.TheScreamingEagles said:Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.
He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.0 -
Coming from you on leavers hating ,you hating 17million people every day.AlastairMeeks said:So today Leavers are hating Tony Blair. Yesterday it was the BMA. It must be exhausting keeping all that negative energy pent up, ready to discharge on so many different subjects.
For a group that like to lay claim to patriotism, there's precious little about Britain that they actually like.0 -
+1Alanbrooke said:
I started the campaign 60-40 for Leave but could have been persuaded to hold my nose and vote RemainJosiasJessop said:
Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?Alanbrooke said:
a somewhat onesided analysis Mr JJosiasJessop said:
Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.Sandpit said:
But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it wto remain members.JosiasJessop said:
Lordy. Not thi minor fact.Sandpit said:
I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.
(There is interesting wrt this.)
both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
(Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)
I ended about 80-20 for Leave and a sense of regret that some old bonds would be broken
What moved my vote was Osbornes obvious lies and Obama's intervention. Nobody on Remain could put forward a positive argument over a six month period and they all sounded shifty as to the future direction of the EU.
Leave also ran some total crap the £350m I just took as a yeah right and dismissed it. I didn't like Farage but had got used to him as an irritant over the last 10 years. Leave didn't have any strong economic arguments except to say the change will shake things up and thats
what I think we need.
So my 20 per cent shift was 10 for Remain having nothing worth saying and 10 for Leave shaking things up.0
