politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “Honouring” the referendum should apply to not just to the out
Options
Comments
-
Sticking it to the Man is now stick it to the Leavers, should we have another referendum.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
Watching Boris And JRM revoke A50 would be a great result.0 -
Maybe - but it is worth recalling that 3% Tory leads only started to appear in the final week of the 2017 campaign. Governments also tend to lose ground in the main campaign period.eek said:
See the thread I've just posted - Labour really don't want an election - they need a new leader firstjustin124 said:
On the other hand, if the Panelbase polls become typical, Labour might be keen to move a VNOC.eek said:
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.AlastairMeeks said:
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Of course but the difficulty with that is that the system is about to get a lot more not workingy for them.Alanbrooke said:
and what of it ? If the system doesnt work for them why wouldnt they kick it ?TOPPING said:
Nah Alan. Many Leavers voted according to their heart and/or acted analogously to coming home from work after a bollocking from their boss and then kicking the dog. It was a god-given opportunity to stick it to the man and they didn't need asking twice. Paint the EU as some huge all-seeing director of their lives which, by voting leave, they could stick it to? Tick. And that's what they did. Speaking to the Aldi shop workers in Grantham, the most common response is "oh, I dunno" when asked why they voted leave and they said they had done.Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking tll lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: befand Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.0 -
No: honouring the objectives of the Belfast Agreement, not the treaty per se.MikeSmithson said:
Honouring the Good Friday Agreement should take priority.HYUFD said:
Then No Deal it has to be until the EU agree to remove the backstop and European Court jurisdiction over the UKThe_Taxman said:
I doubt it! What concessions will the EU require from the UK for that? Easiest trade deal my arse!HYUFD said:'We'll have a free trade deal with the EU but without being subject to the European Court', so once the EU agreed to remove the backstop and start Free Trade Agreement talks that Vote Leave promise can be delivered
The purpose was to established a settled peace between two communities with a complex history based on a consociationalist approach.
It was structured based on the overall constitutional arrangements at the time: i.e. that both Ireland and the UK were in the EU
That assumption is no longer valid, as the UK electorate has decided that the country should leave the EU. The Protestant community, as represented by the DUP, believes that NI should remain indelibly linked to the UK. (The proportion voting to Leave or Remain in NI doesn't matter, as consociationalism requires the consent of the representatives of both communities)
Your approach is to say "The Belfast Agreement cannot change! It must be imposed on one community despite the fact that it requires a breach of their fundamental principal of linkage to the UK"
My approach is to say "Sophisticated politicians should seek for a new solution to address the problem that the Belfast Agreement was designed to solve"
0 -
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"0 -
-
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.0 -
In the 2015 Leadership contest Jezza didn't win on the three quidders, he won with existing members.Stocky said:Re: Corbyn: as we know he only became leader due to influx of members voting for him. Reports recently state that the Labour Party has lost a lot of members. Does anyone know whether these recent leavers are Corbyn supporters or disullusioned Blairites?
If the latter, surely Corbyn is in a stronger position that ever - at least with regard to the menbership?0 -
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?0 -
I remember your postings long before the referendum campaign started when you were still posting as Antifrank. You were never anything other than completely opposed to leaving. Not least because at the time you had a place in Hungary.AlastairMeeks said:
I was open to persuasion. Then it became apparent that all Leave had to campaign on was an anti-immigration message and at that point it was apparent that Remain was the less bad choice.isam said:
Well there is.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
You were on this forum, one of "les indecided's" - people who were always going to vote Remain,but pretended to be open minded about what to do, at the time. You surely can remember Richard Tyndall, DavidL and myself were saying about how we were going to vote?0 -
I have one as I'm never sure where I will be...Alanbrooke said:
loleek said:
Devil's advocate - They had 15 hours to find the time to do so, the more academically gifted had a day job that ate into the time available.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
but youre still meant to be smarter.
ever heard of postal votes
0 -
I give up. It's such a simple point.Alanbrooke said:
Its not hard to understand, its simply you want to ignore that the economy was the big big message from Remain, practically its only message and it didnt convince enough people because it wasnt switched on to what they were thinking.
Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.0 -
Another Meeks lie.AlastairMeeks said:I'm enjoying this latest Leave meme that the referendum vote was presented to us, fully formed, immanent and unblemished by external influences.
0 -
I wrote this a long time back. Others can judge whether you are accurately summarising my position:Richard_Tyndall said:
I remember your postings long before the referendum campaign started when you were still posting as Antifrank. You were never anything other than completely opposed to leaving. Not least because at the time you had a place in Hungary.AlastairMeeks said:
I was open to persuasion. Then it became apparent that all Leave had to campaign on was an anti-immigration message and at that point it was apparent that Remain was the less bad choice.isam said:
Well there is.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
You were on this forum, one of "les indecided's" - people who were always going to vote Remain,but pretended to be open minded about what to do, at the time. You surely can remember Richard Tyndall, DavidL and myself were saying about how we were going to vote?
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-eu-and-britain.html?m=00 -
The can must be getting quite dented now.0
-
brave of the guardian to throw stonesYellow_Submarine said:“For us as a business, obviously the main challenge isn’t from Brexit itself, it’s from the uncertainty. The number one requirement is that there is certainty about what happens. Equally, that uncertainty is not unhelpful from a reader perspective,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/15/daily-telegraph-drops-bottled-water-promo-wh-smith-pre-tax-profits-fall0 -
Its the killer app to you as a remainer. its a point of interest to me as a leaver, It simply shows why there is such a gulf between the sides. You cant get your head round a view that says theres more to life than moneyRichard_Nabavi said:
I give up. It's such a simple point.Alanbrooke said:
Its not hard to understand, its simply you want to ignore that the economy was the big big message from Remain, practically its only message and it didnt convince enough people because it wasnt switched on to what they were thinking.
Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.1 -
No I would not.Danny565 said:
The transition is much more than just staying in the Single Market. We'd be technically outside the EU structures, but we'd still remain subject to every EU law/rule/regulation that we are currently, as well as full contributions to the EU Budget. Not even fisheries policy changes.Richard_Tyndall said:
I woulx have to revidit the detail as it seems a lifetime ago now but as I remember the transition period put us outside the EU structures but inside the Single Market. Which is what I want as an end point anyway.Danny565 said:
What if we officially leave, but we stay in the "transition period" (during which absolutely nothing changes) forevermore, because a permanent deal can never be reached and MPs keep forcing the government to extend the transition instead?Richard_Tyndall said:
This I would agree with entirelyYellow_Submarine said:
Which is fine. But then any outcome from Norway ++++ to a chaotic no deal exit will deliver what you voted for. But Anyone arguing that Brexit has to mean X can reasonably be refered to the official Leave campaign promises.Omnium said:I voted 'Leave'. I didn't vote for 'Official Leave Campaign', and nor did anyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO_Fg6R0i5w
Again, I'd be fine with that carrying on indefinitely, but I'm surprised you would be.0 -
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."0 -
I dont know about that, Only one of the previous five governments didn't feature one of those parties, and there was very little between their leaderships view on the EU and immigration from 1991 until 2015, so even if your party lost, the rules of the game were those you favoured.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"0 -
Thanks for this, but your polemic does not quite deal with the point.AlastairMeeks said:
Well perhaps, just perhaps, such a person should have been vehemently calling out the xenophobic lies before the referendum result to have a debate about how a Leave vote were to be implemented. But such Leavers were conspicuous by their silence on the point. They just cast their vote, obviously content to do so on the basis of the campaign fought.algarkirk said:
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?AlastairMeeks said:
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.algarkirk said:
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.AlastairMeeks said:
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.isam said:
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.AlastairMeeks said:So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
After the referendum result, they crept out from behind the curtain to announce that they were open to a compromise (mysteriously on exactly the terms they wanted). But by that point, the option of such a way forward had been closed off.0 -
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
0 -
"the root cause of their problems were home grown"TOPPING said:
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
so the gifted in effect said were fking you vote for us
Im beginning to wonder who the gifted are in this scenario.0 -
Indeed, I have pretty much lost every time I have voted since 2005!OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
0 -
I got a couple of thousand words but immigration aint one of 'emAlastairMeeks said:
I wrote this a long time back. Others can judge whether you are accurately summarising my position:Richard_Tyndall said:
I remember your postings long before the referendum campaign started when you were still posting as Antifrank. You were never anything other than completely opposed to leaving. Not least because at the time you had a place in Hungary.AlastairMeeks said:
I was open to persuasion. Then it became apparent that all Leave had to campaign on was an anti-immigration message and at that point it was apparent that Remain was the less bad choice.isam said:
Well there is.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
You were on this forum, one of "les indecided's" - people who were always going to vote Remain,but pretended to be open minded about what to do, at the time. You surely can remember Richard Tyndall, DavidL and myself were saying about how we were going to vote?
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-eu-and-britain.html?m=00 -
If we assume your typical leaver is from "the not doing that well" side of the economy then economics isn't something they really care about.Alanbrooke said:
Its the killer app to you as a remainer. its a point of interest to me as a leaver, It simply shows why there is such a gulf between the sides. You cant get your head round a view that says theres more to life than moneyRichard_Nabavi said:
I give up. It's such a simple point.Alanbrooke said:
Its not hard to understand, its simply you want to ignore that the economy was the big big message from Remain, practically its only message and it didnt convince enough people because it wasnt switched on to what they were thinking.
Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.
I was chatting to some people in Nissan and they said the letter from Management did them no favours and actually encouraged people to vote Leave. When I suggest it would have been better to ask people to think about who bought the left hand drive cars they agreed it would have been a simply and easier message to sell.
As I've learnt over the years you don't tell people what to do you ask them questions to get them to make the decision you want them to make.1 -
Well given that "the political class" has been in power in the UK for centuries the alternative was a different political system but I'm not sure voting Leave was ever going to achieve that. That would have required some other form, perhaps of direct action and was certainly nothing to do with an in/out EU referendum.Alanbrooke said:
"the root cause of their problems were home grown"TOPPING said:
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
so the gifted in effect said were fking you vote for us
Im beginning to wonder who the gifted are in this scenario.0 -
I don't think that last sentence is true in general.justin124 said:
Maybe - but it is worth recalling that 3% Tory leads only started to appear in the final week of the 2017 campaign. Governments also tend to lose ground in the main campaign period.eek said:
See the thread I've just posted - Labour really don't want an election - they need a new leader firstjustin124 said:
On the other hand, if the Panelbase polls become typical, Labour might be keen to move a VNOC.eek said:
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.AlastairMeeks said:
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
For the most of a government's term that party drops in the polls, partly because any government needs to make some unpopular decisions, and partly because people like complaining about the government.
When the election comes the voters start to look at the comparison, between the two main parties and many who voted for the government last time start to think that that lot aren't so bad after all. That and the government tends to give away some swing voter friendly sweeteners.0 -
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.0 -
Me too!SouthamObserver said:
Indeed, I have pretty much lost every time I have voted since 2005!OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
And the one time I won, I didnt get paid out0 -
Given the campaign fought (and acquiesced to by such voters) such a voter would need to choose between Leaving on the anti-immigration prospectus put forward by both Leave campaigns or Remaining on the renegotiated terms secured by David Cameron.algarkirk said:
Thanks for this, but your polemic does not quite deal with the point.AlastairMeeks said:
Well perhaps, just perhaps, such a person should have been vehemently calling out the xenophobic lies before the referendum result to have a debate about how a Leave vote were to be implemented. But such Leavers were conspicuous by their silence on the point. They just cast their vote, obviously content to do so on the basis of the campaign fought.algarkirk said:
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?AlastairMeeks said:
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.algarkirk said:
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.AlastairMeeks said:
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.isam said:
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.AlastairMeeks said:So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
After the referendum result, they crept out from behind the curtain to announce that they were open to a compromise (mysteriously on exactly the terms they wanted). But by that point, the option of such a way forward had been closed off.
Expecting a compromise that satisfied you completely in such circumstances would be fanciful. And, given the way in which the referendum was fought, would show a reckless disregard for democracy.
0 -
preciselyeek said:
If we assume your typical leaver is from "the not doing that well" side of the economy then economics isn't something they really care about.Alanbrooke said:
Its the killer app to you as a remainer. its a point of interest to me as a leaver, It simply shows why there is such a gulf between the sides. You cant get your head round a view that says theres more to life than moneyRichard_Nabavi said:
I give up. It's such a simple point.Alanbrooke said:
Its not hard to understand, its simply you want to ignore that the economy was the big big message from Remain, practically its only message and it didnt convince enough people because it wasnt switched on to what they were thinking.
Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.
I was chatting to some people in Nissan and they said the letter from Management did them no favours and actually encouraged people to vote Leave. When I suggest it would have been better to ask people to think about who bought the left hand drive cars they agreed it would have been a simply and easier message to sell.
As I've learnt over the years you don't tell people what to do you ask them questions to get them to make the decision you want them to make.
plase dont do any advisory work if theres a second referendum
0 -
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.0 -
New waves of refugees from the Middle East is the last thing we need when pushing for a soft Brexit. How damn depressing.Scott_P said:0 -
There is a Viz cartoon which casts Dads at a Nativity Play as wannabe escapees from a POW camp. Very very funnyAnabobazina said:0 -
Though by and large those were spurious reasons. With the exception of the Fens, Leave voting areas were very often ones with low EU immigration and low house prices. Places like Copeland and the Welsh valleys. Less so the older Shire home owning Leaver demographic, but by and large those are not communities under economic strain.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probabilityRichard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Areas with high EU immigration and high house prices were often strongly Remain. This is because immigration, house prices and Remain voting all correlate with economic success.
0 -
Yet more Meeks lies. You are on a roll today.AlastairMeeks said:
Well perhaps, just perhaps, such a person should have been vehemently calling out the xenophobic lies before the referendum result to have a debate about how a Leave vote were to be implemented. But such Leavers were conspicuous by their silence on the point. They just cast their vote, obviously content to do so on the basis of the campaign fought.algarkirk said:
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?AlastairMeeks said:
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.algarkirk said:
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.AlastairMeeks said:
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.isam said:
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.AlastairMeeks said:So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
After the referendum result, they crept out from behind the curtain to announce that they were open to a compromise (mysteriously on exactly the terms they wanted). But by that point, the option of such a way forward had been closed off.0 -
Wealth is a very poor predictor of whether someone voted for Brexit.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Age is the only good predictor.0 -
We'll still end up wth the same political class, all the vote will do is make them recalibrate whats important but that in its own way is progress. The pissed off factor as you have pointed out was left to build up for far too long and there was no way of releasing pressure.TOPPING said:
Well given that "the political class" has been in power in the UK for centuries the alternative was a different political system but I'm not sure voting Leave was ever going to achieve that. That would have required some other form, perhaps of direct action and was certainly nothing to do with an in/out EU referendum.Alanbrooke said:
"the root cause of their problems were home grown"TOPPING said:
The gifted tried this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
so the gifted in effect said were fking you vote for us
Im beginning to wonder who the gifted are in this scenario.0 -
From memory I thought there was reasonable academic evidence that campaigns don't make much difference to elections.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
(Based on a thirty second google it looks like things may have moved on in the 20 years since I studied psephology
Early research suggested that such campaigns were not very important but subsequent research shows that they are influential both in increasing turnout and changing the party choices that individual electors make.
https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-224
0 -
So, it was principles informed by economics? That, I would suggest, is pretty much how most Remain voters saw things, too. And, no, I did not ever accuse Leave voters of xenophobia. I would certainly have accused specific Leave voters of that and would doubtless have accused certain Leave politicians of seeking to appeal to xenophobes.Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
0 -
Even if it is largely true that GE campaigns make little difference, that's presumably because the arguments are well rehearsed and the politicians making them are familiar. The finding wouldn't necessarily carry over to a one-off referendum.Charles said:
From memory I thought there was reasonable academic evidence that campaigns don't make much difference to elections.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
(Based on a thirty second google it looks like things may have moved on in the 20 years since I studied psephology
Early research suggested that such campaigns were not very important but subsequent research shows that they are influential both in increasing turnout and changing the party choices that individual electors make.
https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-2240 -
Yep, I agree.Foxy said:
Though by and large those were spurious reasons. With the exception of the Fens, Leave voting areas were very often ones with low EU immigration and low house prices. Places like Copeland and the Welsh valleys. Less so the older Shire home owning Leaver demographic, but by and large those are not communities under economic strain.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probabilityRichard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Areas with high EU immigration and high house prices were often strongly Remain. This is because immigration, house prices and Remain voting all correlate with economic success.
0 -
Where you come from the effect of Brexit could be to get a different political class with D4 accents.Alanbrooke said:
We'll still end up wth the same political class, all the vote will do is make them recalibrate whats important but that in its own way is progress.TOPPING said:
Well given that "the political class" has been in power in the UK for centuries the alternative was a different political system but I'm not sure voting Leave was ever going to achieve that. That would have required some other form, perhaps of direct action and was certainly nothing to do with an in/out EU referendum.Alanbrooke said:
"the root cause of their problems were home grown"TOPPING said:
The gifted tried this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
so the gifted in effect said were fking you vote for us
Im beginning to wonder who the gifted are in this scenario.0 -
Equally I've seen a paper that shows that the impact of austerity on an area also had a material impact.Alistair said:
Wealth is a very poor predictor of whether someone voted for Brexit.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Age is the only good predictor.0 -
As we have often said before there is a big diffrence between the Meeks headers snd what you post below the line.AlastairMeeks said:
I wrote this a long time back. Others can judge whether you are accurately summarising my position:Richard_Tyndall said:
I remember your postings long before the referendum campaign started when you were still posting as Antifrank. You were never anything other than completely opposed to leaving. Not least because at the time you had a place in Hungary.AlastairMeeks said:
I was open to persuasion. Then it became apparent that all Leave had to campaign on was an anti-immigration message and at that point it was apparent that Remain was the less bad choice.isam said:
Well there is.AlastairMeeks said:
That would be remarkably convenient for Leavers. Unfortunately there isn't the slightest evidence to support that.Stocky said:AlastairMeeks: "So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?"
No - just that it probably made no difference to this one.
You were on this forum, one of "les indecided's" - people who were always going to vote Remain,but pretended to be open minded about what to do, at the time. You surely can remember Richard Tyndall, DavidL and myself were saying about how we were going to vote?
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-eu-and-britain.html?m=01 -
As someone who has spent almost all their life in London I can assure you there are numerous boroughs in London with high house prices, high immigration and limited success. The same applies to many Major UK Cities. The home counties are a more desirable place to live than London on many measurements and yet had a majority leave vote.0
-
A new wave of refugees is coming.Gabs2 said:
New waves of refugees from the Middle East is the last thing we need when pushing for a soft Brexit. How damn depressing.Scott_P said:
As I stated last Sunday as the Kurd issue kicked off Erdogan needs the Syrian refugees out of Istanbul and Turkey so needed somewhere for them to go.
The Syrians don't want to go to a part of Syria they didn't come from so are desperately trying to find another place to go to.0 -
hmmSouthamObserver said:
So, it was principles informed by economics? That, I would suggest, is pretty much how most Remain voters saw things, too. And, no, I did not ever accuse Leave voters of xenophobia. I would certainly have accused specific Leave voters of that and would doubtless have accused certain Leave politicians of seeking to appeal to xenophobes.Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Remian arguments were all for telling voters how much they would lose and how we'd all have to live on grass for the rest of our lives.
None of them addressed the impacts of immigration or accepted it as a valid concern. The only people I can recall grasping this nettle were John Harris of the Guardian who wrote some splendid articles on life in the provinces and John Denham who understood what was afoot. For the rest immigration and its impact were simply name calling exercises,0 -
That's a weird reply. If you were a Lib Dem voter your party has been in govt for 5 years of your life. If you are a middle aged Labour voter like me your party has been in power for 13 years out of the 40 or so you can remember. And the fact that Tory govts up until May's favoured EU membership is pretty immaterial given they did a shed load of other stuff that I hated. We're not all obsessed with the EU. My point stands: most Remain voters have lost more political arguments than they have won, and so it's not like Brexit represents a sudden shock to our dignity, merely one more stage in things going to shit.isam said:
I dont know about that, Only one of the previous five governments didn't feature one of those parties, and there was very little between their leaderships view on the EU and immigration from 1991 until 2015, so even if your party lost, the rules of the game were those you favoured.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"0 -
That's brilliant.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
*applauds*1 -
-
Right. Is that meant to rile me or something, because really it just looks stupid.williamglenn said:
Where you come from the effect of Brexit could be to get a different political class with D4 accents.Alanbrooke said:
We'll still end up wth the same political class, all the vote will do is make them recalibrate whats important but that in its own way is progress.TOPPING said:
Well given that "the political class" has been in power in the UK for centuries the alternative was a different political system but I'm not sure voting Leave was ever going to achieve that. That would have required some other form, perhaps of direct action and was certainly nothing to do with an in/out EU referendum.Alanbrooke said:
"the root cause of their problems were home grown"TOPPING said:
The gifted tried this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
so the gifted in effect said were fking you vote for us
Im beginning to wonder who the gifted are in this scenario.0 -
Where are the figures for EU immigration by town/borough or constituency?Foxy said:
Though by and large those were spurious reasons. With the exception of the Fens, Leave voting areas were very often ones with low EU immigration and low house prices. Places like Copeland and the Welsh valleys. Less so the older Shire home owning Leaver demographic, but by and large those are not communities under economic strain.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probabilityRichard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Areas with high EU immigration and high house prices were often strongly Remain. This is because immigration, house prices and Remain voting all correlate with economic success.0 -
The home counties are nice places for a walk and a pub lunch but I'd rather live in Wigan than Surrey.Brom said:As someone who has spent almost all their life in London I can assure you there are numerous boroughs in London with high house prices, high immigration and limited success. The same applies to many Major UK Cities. The home counties are a more desirable place to live than London on many measurements and yet had a majority leave vote.
0 -
Whats the earliest date of a GE i.e. if a vote in parliament were held today? I think i have read 5 weeks is the minimum length of campaign? I find FTPA and all that flows from it is in need of clarification.GIN1138 said:
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.0 -
Go Nicola!
I've heard bits of pieces of her speech going in and out of the car on the school run, but her speech I've heard has been excellent and except for the cutting the military section I'd agree with what I've heard despite her being a lefty.
Go for independence Scotland, we can do it, you can do it! Good luck.
Scotland 2020. Go for it 0 -
I don't know why there is all this kerfuffle. The EU is not going to agree to any hardening of the border in NI. It just isn't. And Boris knows it and in all probability (because he is a c**t and one can't be sure) agrees also. So it is all a grand strategy to try to...to...er...I'm not sure what but the EU ain't caving and agreeing to a hardening of the border in NI any time soon.Scott_P said:0 -
19th November or more realistically the 21st.The_Taxman said:
Whats the earliest date of a GE i.e. if a vote in parliament were held today? I think i have read 5 weeks is the minimum length of campaign? I find FTPA and all that flows from it is in need of clarification.GIN1138 said:
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.
You need 25 working days minimum so Bank Holidays may be an issue.0 -
I doubt a deal will be made. I would welcome one, if the deal could be validated by a confirmatory referendum between deal and remain.Scott_P said:0 -
Is that the big bad EU bullying poor little Boris?Scott_P said:0 -
"My point stands: most Remain voters have lost more political arguments than they have won,"OnlyLivingBoy said:
That's a weird reply. If you were a Lib Dem voter your party has been in govt for 5 years of your life. If you are a middle aged Labour voter like me your party has been in power for 13 years out of the 40 or so you can remember. And the fact that Tory govts up until May's favoured EU membership is pretty immaterial given they did a shed load of other stuff that I hated. We're not all obsessed with the EU. My point stands: most Remain voters have lost more political arguments than they have won, and so it's not like Brexit represents a sudden shock to our dignity, merely one more stage in things going to shit.isam said:
I dont know about that, Only one of the previous five governments didn't feature one of those parties, and there was very little between their leaderships view on the EU and immigration from 1991 until 2015, so even if your party lost, the rules of the game were those you favoured.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't get this argument. Most Remain voters were Labour or Lib Dem supporters, who are very well aquainted with losing arguments and elections!isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
I don't know that you can categorically state that as fact.0 -
I suspect it's all anecdotes until we get a census. There was a report a couple of years ago that supermarket sales pointed to a population millions more than the government was reporting but 10 seconds of googling can't find it.,isam said:
Where are the figures for EU immigration by town/borough or constituency?0 -
If I had voted on the expectation of a cushiony soft Brexit, where little changed except law making was more controlled by Westminster, less by Brussels, the closest thing resembling my choice would still be Leave, of any hue.0
-
TOPPING said:
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. "Richard_Nabavi said:J
From memory, Vote Leave said we would be part of a free trade zone from somewhere to somewhere else which suggests but only suggests they wanted a free trade agreement with the EU. But that's all. It could as easily mean membership of the EEA. .
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html Viewed today.
No ifs, no buts, no "suggest". Gove, Johnson, Cummings and all the other gobshites put their name to this promise and are now refusing to respect it.0 -
We hear what we want to hear I guess.Alanbrooke said:
hmmSouthamObserver said:
So, it was principles informed by economics? That, I would suggest, is pretty much how most Remain voters saw things, too. And, no, I did not ever accuse Leave voters of xenophobia. I would certainly have accused specific Leave voters of that and would doubtless have accused certain Leave politicians of seeking to appeal to xenophobes.Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Remian arguments were all for telling voters how much they would lose and how we'd all have to live on grass for the rest of our lives.
None of them addressed the impacts of immigration or accepted it as a valid concern. The only people I can recall grasping this nettle were John Harris of the Guardian who wrote some splendid articles on life in the provinces and John Denham who understood what was afoot. For the rest immigration and its impact were simply name calling exercises,
0 -
It is the role of Parliament to make the decision as to the type of Brexit that is implemented. A second referendum poses more risk, the possibility of anger, delay and public unrest than almost any other option.The_Taxman said:
I doubt a deal will be made. I would welcome one, if the deal could be validated by a confirmatory referendum between deal and remain.Scott_P said:0 -
I think that's what a lot of people thought they were voting for.Luckyguy1983 said:If I had voted on the expectation of a cushiony soft Brexit, where little changed except law making was more controlled by Westminster, less by Brussels, the closest thing resembling my choice would still be Leave, of any hue.
0 -
Guardian says Boris has agreed "in principle" to a Customs border between NI and the British mainland.0
-
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1184110807543635971?s=20The_Taxman said:
Whats the earliest date of a GE i.e. if a vote in parliament were held today? I think i have read 5 weeks is the minimum length of campaign? I find FTPA and all that flows from it is in need of clarification.GIN1138 said:
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.0 -
Brexiteers going into number 10, varadkar about to do a presser.........0
-
I'd settle for that as a compromise.The_Taxman said:
I doubt a deal will be made. I would welcome one, if the deal could be validated by a confirmatory referendum between deal and remain.Scott_P said:0 -
fraid so but twas ever thusSouthamObserver said:
We hear what we want to hear I guess.Alanbrooke said:
hmmSouthamObserver said:
So, it was principles informed by economics? That, I would suggest, is pretty much how most Remain voters saw things, too. And, no, I did not ever accuse Leave voters of xenophobia. I would certainly have accused specific Leave voters of that and would doubtless have accused certain Leave politicians of seeking to appeal to xenophobes.Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Rling exercises,
s0 -
So according to Wee Jimmie Krankie there will be no fracking in Scotland, because fossil fuels are bad.
Wow it will be interesting to see how an independent Scotland manages without North Sea Oil when she logically closes that industry down for the same reasons...
FFS what a joke
0 -
Thanks, I was worried as i have a holiday booked but that time frame although hypothetical leaves me alright. Just have to worry No Deal might collapse the airline i am flying with! Although it should be alright, to start with anyway. I worry about everything!eek said:
19th November or more realistically the 21st.The_Taxman said:
Whats the earliest date of a GE i.e. if a vote in parliament were held today? I think i have read 5 weeks is the minimum length of campaign? I find FTPA and all that flows from it is in need of clarification.GIN1138 said:
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.
You need 25 working days minimum so Bank Holidays may be an issue.0 -
and see what we want to seeSouthamObserver said:
We hear what we want to hear I guess.Alanbrooke said:
hmmSouthamObserver said:Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Remian arguments were all for telling voters how much they would lose and how we'd all have to live on grass for the rest of our lives.
None of them addressed the impacts of immigration or accepted it as a valid concern. The only people I can recall grasping this nettle were John Harris of the Guardian who wrote some splendid articles on life in the provinces and John Denham who understood what was afoot. For the rest immigration and its impact were simply name calling exercises,0 -
Thanks for that. It helps crystalise it in my mind. Not a great time of year for an election but Jan/Feb could be worse!CatMan said:
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1184110807543635971?s=20The_Taxman said:
Whats the earliest date of a GE i.e. if a vote in parliament were held today? I think i have read 5 weeks is the minimum length of campaign? I find FTPA and all that flows from it is in need of clarification.GIN1138 said:
I can't see people wanting to risk the last two weeks of January and first two weeks of February (traditionally the coldest four weeks of the year) on an election.justin124 said:
Not necessarily. An election could be announced in mid- December with Polling Day set for 23rd or 30th January.GIN1138 said:
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.AlastairMeeks said:
If an election doesn't happen by 5th December I really think the window closes until end of February/early March or more likely next Spring.0 -
-
Thank youByronic said:
That's brilliant.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
*applauds* 0 -
So you think that the right way to ramp down fossil fuel use is.. to start to exploit extra sources?JonCisBack said:So according to Wee Jimmie Krankie there will be no fracking in Scotland, because fossil fuels are bad.
Wow it will be interesting to see how an independent Scotland manages without North Sea Oil when she logically closes that industry down for the same reasons...
FFS what a joke
0 -
So, what you're saying is that a Brexit Christmas election presages the second coming?viewcode said:0 -
Unfortunately, though, we cannot smell what we want to smell.isam said:
and see what we want to seeSouthamObserver said:
We hear what we want to hear I guess.Alanbrooke said:
hmmSouthamObserver said:Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Remian arguments were all for telling voters how much they would lose and how we'd all have to live on grass for the rest of our lives.
None of them addressed the impacts of immigration or accepted it as a valid concern. The only people I can recall grasping this nettle were John Harris of the Guardian who wrote some splendid articles on life in the provinces and John Denham who understood what was afoot. For the rest immigration and its impact were simply name calling exercises,
0 -
Don't the DUP think the EU is mentioned in Revelations? Or something like that anywayrcs1000 said:
So, what you're saying is that a Brexit Christmas election presages the second coming?viewcode said:
0 -
Actually, the 'less gifted' were right to take the opportunity that came. You're correct, the problem was mainly due to our own politicians - elsewhere in the EU, national interests are fiercely defended, irksome regulations are quietly ignored etc. And even Juncker himself offered the UK semi-detached status. Cameron ignored the offer because he thought he could permanently tether the UK to the EU, hook line and sinker.TOPPING said:
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
But the public weren't given the opportunity to vote in a referendum with an option to rid the UK of supine, venal, elitist politicians, and replace them with hardworking, patriotic, democratic (basically Swiss) ones. They were given the opportunity to take the ball away and leave the EU. And in the circumstances, that was the right response.0 -
Yeah I know but I'm being generous on the point of principle that it was a manifesto aspiration. And that is all.Flanner said:
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. "
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html Viewed today.
No ifs, no buts, no "suggest". Gove, Johnson, Cummings and all the other gobshites put their name to this promise and are now refusing to respect it.0 -
If that is the case, we have wasted close to two years on absolutely nothing!! Still, if it gets a deal done that is the main thing.Danny565 said:Guardian says Boris has agreed "in principle" to a Customs border between NI and the British mainland.
0 -
All three are subjectiveSouthamObserver said:
Unfortunately, though, we cannot smell what we want to smell.isam said:
and see what we want to seeSouthamObserver said:
We hear what we want to hear I guess.Alanbrooke said:
hmmSouthamObserver said:Alanbrooke said:
its both social and economic a point I made many times . And I do rather recall you were big on this xenophobia thing.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to v argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre vice versa of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a for Leave winning.Alanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
To neutralise those concerns to win.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
we will have to agree to differ on that
as for economics the Remian arguments were all for telling voters how much they would lose and how we'd all have to live on grass for the rest of our lives.
None of them addressed the impacts of immigration or accepted it as a valid concern. The only people I can recall grasping this nettle were John Harris of the Guardian who wrote some splendid articles on life in the provinces and John Denham who understood what was afoot. For the rest immigration and its impact were simply name calling exercises,0 -
I will say again, Boris will throw NI under the bus and go with the rest of WAScott_P said:0 -
A lot of people live in the fracking target areas, broadly defined - not surprisingly, as the Carboniferous strata powered the Industrial Revolution. Interestingly, thsi seems to include at least part of the constituency of Ms Swinson, who appears to have supported fracking [possibly as a Coalition member, but hey ...] and (edit: reportedly) to have financial support from that quarter.Noo said:
So you think that the right way to ramp down fossil fuel use is.. to start to exploit extra sources?JonCisBack said:So according to Wee Jimmie Krankie there will be no fracking in Scotland, because fossil fuels are bad.
Wow it will be interesting to see how an independent Scotland manages without North Sea Oil when she logically closes that industry down for the same reasons...
FFS what a joke0 -
Yes I think that is reasonable. And if we get some cushiony soft Brexit you won't be complaining. The @Richard_Tyndall Leave which I get completely.Luckyguy1983 said:If I had voted on the expectation of a cushiony soft Brexit, where little changed except law making was more controlled by Westminster, less by Brussels, the closest thing resembling my choice would still be Leave, of any hue.
I mean there is the whole what's the fucking point thing but that's a discussion for another day.0 -
Why did the UK choose to elect "supine, venal, elitist politicians" and then to kick them a year later?Luckyguy1983 said:
Actually, the 'less gifted' were right to take the opportunity that came. You're correct, the problem was mainly due to our own politicians - elsewhere in the EU, national interests are fiercely defended, irksome regulations are quietly ignored etc. And even Juncker himself offered the UK semi-detached status. Cameron ignored the offer because he thought he could permanently tether the UK to the EU, hook line and sinker.TOPPING said:
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
But the public weren't given the opportunity to vote in a referendum with an option to rid the UK of supine, venal, elitist politicians, and replace them with hardworking, patriotic, democratic (basically Swiss) ones. They were given the opportunity to take the ball away and leave the EU. And in the circumstances, that was the right response.0 -
-
I'm sure you're right, but I'm puzzled at the suggestion that remain is a closer facsimile of their choice than leave.Noo said:
I think that's what a lot of people thought they were voting for.Luckyguy1983 said:If I had voted on the expectation of a cushiony soft Brexit, where little changed except law making was more controlled by Westminster, less by Brussels, the closest thing resembling my choice would still be Leave, of any hue.
0 -
Even under the circumstance it was still a very dumb response. Self harm may gain attention, but it is never a great way of improving your general conditions.Luckyguy1983 said:
Actually, the 'less gifted' were right to take the opportunity that came. You're correct, the problem was mainly due to our own politicians - elsewhere in the EU, national interests are fiercely defended, irksome regulations are quietly ignored etc. And even Juncker himself offered the UK semi-detached status. Cameron ignored the offer because he thought he could permanently tether the UK to the EU, hook line and sinker.TOPPING said:
The gifted tried to explain that really, the EU was not responsible for the woes that hoi polloi were facing and that the root cause of their problems were home grown. But, being academically less able, the academically less able were unable to understand this.Alanbrooke said:
one would have thought the gifted might have done enough not to make the hoi polloi kick the dog.TOPPING said:
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.Alanbrooke said:
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the giftedTOPPING said:
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.isam said:The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
I assume you second comment refers to Osborne;s camapign management ?
As that sage of our times put it: "That would be like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong, but it's still going to shit in your hair."
But the public weren't given the opportunity to vote in a referendum with an option to rid the UK of supine, venal, elitist politicians, and replace them with hardworking, patriotic, democratic (basically Swiss) ones. They were given the opportunity to take the ball away and leave the EU. And in the circumstances, that was the right response.0 -
YOU half witted cretin , we don't get a penny from North Sea Oil , it was all stolen by Westminster and the shysters tell us it is losing money now. You morons might be happy with tremors, shit water supplies etc, we are happy to have no fracking ever.JonCisBack said:So according to Wee Jimmie Krankie there will be no fracking in Scotland, because fossil fuels are bad.
Wow it will be interesting to see how an independent Scotland manages without North Sea Oil when she logically closes that industry down for the same reasons...
FFS what a joke0 -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/migrationwithintheuk/datasets/localareamigrationindicatorsunitedkingdomisam said:
Where are the figures for EU immigration by town/borough or constituency?Foxy said:
Though by and large those were spurious reasons. With the exception of the Fens, Leave voting areas were very often ones with low EU immigration and low house prices. Places like Copeland and the Welsh valleys. Less so the older Shire home owning Leaver demographic, but by and large those are not communities under economic strain.SouthamObserver said:
I very specifically never said that, though I can see why you would have wanted me to. So, what kind of argument is high EU immigration reduces wages and makes housing kess affordable if it is not an economic one?Alanbrooke said:
you told me consistently it was racism. Are you now changing your mind ?SouthamObserver said:
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?Alanbrooke said:
youre simply seeking to discount the probabilityRichard_Nabavi said:
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wantedAlanbrooke said:
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.Stocky said:Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Areas with high EU immigration and high house prices were often strongly Remain. This is because immigration, house prices and Remain voting all correlate with economic success.
So in 2016 there were 6046 new NI numbers issued to migrants in Brighton and Hove (pop 16-64 of 203,119) compared to
202 for 57,674 in Hartlepool,
5053 for 88,476 in Cambridge,
63 for 42,509 in Copeland etc etc
0
This discussion has been closed.