politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP’s attempt to block the scrapping of roaming ccharges w

@Plato_Says It's when I read rubbish like that from Corbyn's admirers that I realise his is a religious rather than a political cult. It's as bad as reading some of the freaky apologetics stuff from an American fundie. Who cares about things like facts and the evidence when you can have 'faith of the heart'?

Very appropriate for Christmas though - how about 'wie schönen leuchtet den Morgenstern' as their new motto? Only thing is nobody would accuse Milne, McDonnell and the Jezziah of being three wise men...

David Aaronovitch has a superb column on stupidity research today - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4649089.ece.

He mentions Trots thinking Tory voters will choose them instead, cultural appropriation outrage [like yoga] and prosecuting the dead as some of most egregious examples of 2015. So far...

ydoethur said:

@Plato_Says It's when I read rubbish like that from Corbyn's admirers that I realise his is a religious rather than a political cult. It's as bad as reading some of the freaky apologetics stuff from an American fundie. Who cares about things like facts and the evidence when you can have 'faith of the heart'?

Very appropriate for Christmas though - how about 'wie schönen leuchtet den Morgenstern' as their new motto? Only thing is nobody would accuse Milne, McDonnell and the Jezziah of being three wise men...

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If people decide their votes based on this, we may well be entering an Angeli period of decay.

It's like deciding whether to retain the union based on train ticket prices.

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

I realise that it is very hard for zealots to comprehend but undecided people think quite differently from you. But they are the ones you need to persuade. Both sides in the campaign are doing a terrible job of this. Remain is utterly ineffectual. Leave seems to be seeking actively to deter the undecideds.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

Most of my posts on pb about the referendum are buckets of cold water over the Leave campaign but that's largely because pb is chockfull of rabid anti-EU headbangers. You shouldn't infer any great enthusiasm for the EU from that. If I vote Remain, I won't be skipping to the polling booth with a song in my heart as I do so.

Incidentally, I have made the point previously and will make the point again that it may well be that Leave's best chance of winning will be to abandon voters like me in search of other more numerous groups. Just because I'm undecided doesn't necessarily mean that my vote is worth courting if to gain it would entail giving up on more votes elsewhere.

Where I do think I'm more typical is in approaching this as a question of identity. Leave will not win if the public concludes that a post-Leave Britain is either a completely incoherent vision or would be a profoundly reactionary country. Leave needs to explain clearly what post-Leave Britain would look and feel like.

If you chose to identify as one of the many minority gender labels, you could be affronted about everything else.

There's a feast of Guardian columns available to you.

blackburn63 said:

Plato_Says said:

You could decide to identify as *black* like that numpty woman from NAACP.

blackburn63 said:

Plato_Says said:

There's a village up the way from me called Blackboys. Can you imagine all the fuss they've had over the years?!

RobD said:

blackburn63 said:

Plato_Says said:

Lol http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/facebook-bans-blackcock-inn-pubs-7065639

I just read that in the Indy as well! I thought about mentioning it but thought there must be more to it.

Presumably it triggered one of Facebook's automated flagging things. Hopefully their page will be restored soon, I do like a pub with a funny (for a ten year old) name..

What about poor me?

Is that the lady in America who pretended to be black and sued for discrimination even though both her parents were white?

It might explain why I get picked on on here, the site is full of racists.

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If people decide their votes based on this, we may well be entering an Angeli period of decay.

It's like deciding whether to retain the union based on train ticket prices.

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

Most of my posts on pb about the referendum are buckets of cold water over the Leave campaign but that's largely because pb is chockfull of rabid anti-EU headbangers. You shouldn't infer any great enthusiasm for the EU from that. If I vote Remain, I won't be skipping to the polling booth with a song in my heart as I do so.

Incidentally, I have made the point previously and will make the point again that it may well be that Leave's best chance of winning will be to abandon voters like me in search of other more numerous groups. Just because I'm undecided doesn't necessarily mean that my vote is worth courting if to gain it would entail giving up on more votes elsewhere.

Where I do think I'm more typical is in approaching this as a question of identity. Leave will not win if the public concludes that a post-Leave Britain is either a completely incoherent vision or would be a profoundly reactionary country. Leave needs to explain clearly what post-Leave Britain would look and feel like.

It would look and feel like an independent anglosphere country in close proximity to its much larger continental neighbour: like as Canada is to the USA, or Australia is to Asia. And, to a lesser extent, Japan.

Except with more punch: we have twice the population, a bigger economy, nukes, a UN Security Council seat, a global expeditionary military capability and highly permeating cultural soft-power influence.

It does not infer isolation: we could be in a great place to freely arbitrate or bring together Western foreign policy between Oceania, Europe and North America.

And now a little Christmas cheer from our friends at LabourList...

@LabourList: 2015 election verdict: Too tough on welfare and the deficit, and too much like the Tories https://t.co/03urwDO9Rz

@str8downmiddle: @LabourList and to be clear, Labour to hard on welfare, so we voted in those soft fluffy welfare loving Tories instead?

@MarpleLeaf: @LabourList @Conorpope The voters were wrong, in other words

blackburn63 said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If people decide their votes based on this, we may well be entering an Angeli period of decay.

It's like deciding whether to retain the union based on train ticket prices.

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

I realise that it is very hard for zealots to comprehend but undecided people think quite differently from you. But they are the ones you need to persuade. Both sides in the campaign are doing a terrible job of this. Remain is utterly ineffectual. Leave seems to be seeking actively to deter the undecideds.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

I don't believe anybody on this site is undecided, in the same way I wouldn't believe them if they said shortly before the GE they weren't sure who to vote for.

Some on here are pretending to be undecided whilst in mortal fear of Cameron recommending Leave, some others are going through an intellectual farce of weighing up the arguments when it's obvious they'll vote Leave.

What is clear is that plenty will vote In rather than see Farage "win", in a democracy that's their right but it's as shallow a position as I can imagine.

I was undecided who to vote for in the GE right up to the very day. Frankly I think it's insulting that you presume that because some may present as less certain of which way they intend to vote than may be the case, anyone who claims to be so is a liar. This is the very type of insulting behaviour that people have pointed to with leave and remain, though principally leave, doing a terrible job of persuading anyone.

I'm for leave by the way, though 2 years ago I was for remain. Am I lying about that, given you have the ability to determine the truth?

UKIP in the European Parliament is in a very tough tough position. Is it their view - the one that they espouse in their speeches - that the European Parliament has no democratic legitimacy? (This is the view of Sinn Fein, for example, regards to the UK parliament.) Or is it their view that that they were elected to prevent the increase of EU power?

Their speeches - millions of YouTube views! - proclaim the former; yheir votes the latter.

As it happens, I think it is wrong for the EU to interfere in this space at all. This is market place with many, many competitors. With or without government interference, roaming charges are on the way out. (Why should someone who does not travel have to subsidise someone who does?)

(There is an argument that I have sympathy with that - for data - people have no idea how much a kilobyte is, and sometimes have no control over whether their phone, tablet or laptop decides that now is the right time to download an update from Apple, Google or whoever. In this case, some kind of default daily cap would be appropriate rather than slapping someone with an unexpected £2,000 bill.)

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If people decide their votes based on this, we may well be entering an Angeli period of decay.

It's like deciding whether to retain the union based on train ticket prices.

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

I realise that it is very hard for zealots to comprehend but undecided people think quite differently from you. But they are the ones you need to persuade. Both sides in the campaign are doing a terrible job of this. Remain is utterly ineffectual. Leave seems to be seeking actively to deter the undecideds.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

Most of my posts on pb about the referendum are buckets of cold water over the Leave campaign but that's largely because pb is chockfull of rabid anti-EU headbangers. You shouldn't infer any great enthusiasm for the EU from that. If I vote Remain, I won't be skipping to the polling booth with a song in my heart as I do so.

Incidentally, I have made the point previously and will make the point again that it may well be that Leave's best chance of winning will be to abandon voters like me in search of other more numerous groups. Just because I'm undecided doesn't necessarily mean that my vote is worth courting if to gain it would entail giving up on more votes elsewhere.

Where I do think I'm more typical is in approaching this as a question of identity. Leave will not win if the public concludes that a post-Leave Britain is either a completely incoherent vision or would be a profoundly reactionary country. Leave needs to explain clearly what post-Leave Britain would look and feel like.

What a post-Leave Britain would look like is surely down to post-Leave Britons to decide.

blackburn63 said:

Which eejits?

The same people will be governing us after the referendum regardless of the outcome. This is a strange site, some really insightful and concise postings interspersed with ill considered nonsense.

The referendum is about whether or not we remain in the EU, the General Election is about who governs us. I've no idea who you mean when you say eejit, but I'm assuming you mean those who want to Leave. Therefore plenty of eejits that are currently governing us will still be governing us, the eejits are there already.

Yes, it's amazing how many of your posts are ill-considered nonsense. Perhaps you should have considered your own views before writing that paragraph ...

And by 'eejits', I was directly referring to the leave campaign and many of their followers. And it's perfectly valid to say that: leave are trying to change the status quo, and if we vote to leave we are entrusting our future to their vision of the future.

Sadly, they don't really have one at the moment.

As an aside, I don't think we are run by idiots. There are some class-A idiots amongst our politicians, and they all are prone to moments of idiocy (as we all are). But to class them all as idiots is, well, idiotic.

Mr. 1983, quite. It's entirely legitimate for a politician to decide against religious messages (although Christmas is as secular as it is religious, I knew a Hindu family who celebrated it), but to say yes to some religions and no to Christianity is another kettle of monkeys altogether.

Indigo said:

Wanderer said:

Remain's own campaign has been hapless.

I don't know, both John Major and William Hague did quite a good job for Leave last week. In essence they told us a number of pretty weak reasons to stay, and a few rather good reasons to leave.

That's true enough. I listened to Major and wondered whose side he was really on ...

Luckyguy1983 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If people decide their votes based on this, we may well be entering an Angeli period of decay.

It's like deciding whether to retain the union based on train ticket prices.

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

I realise that it is very hard for zealots to comprehend but undecided people think quite differently from you. But they are the ones you need to persuade. Both sides in the campaign are doing a terrible job of this. Remain is utterly ineffectual. Leave seems to be seeking actively to deter the undecideds.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

Most of my posts on pb about the referendum are buckets of cold water over the Leave campaign but that's largely because pb is chockfull of rabid anti-EU headbangers. You shouldn't infer any great enthusiasm for the EU from that. If I vote Remain, I won't be skipping to the polling booth with a song in my heart as I do so.

Incidentally, I have made the point previously and will make the point again that it may well be that Leave's best chance of winning will be to abandon voters like me in search of other more numerous groups. Just because I'm undecided doesn't necessarily mean that my vote is worth courting if to gain it would entail giving up on more votes elsewhere.

Where I do think I'm more typical is in approaching this as a question of identity. Leave will not win if the public concludes that a post-Leave Britain is either a completely incoherent vision or would be a profoundly reactionary country. Leave needs to explain clearly what post-Leave Britain would look and feel like.

What a post-Leave Britain would look like is surely down to post-Leave Britons to decide.

It might be know before we vote on it though.

Luckyguy1983 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

My decision will be made on the vision of Britain's future that most appeals to me (or, more accurately, that sounds least appalling). That's unlikely to be articulated by anyone campaigning for telecoms companies to be given untrammelled rights to gouge their customer base because the alternative is to let your opponents claim a minor victory.

Are you as undecided as Mr Nabavi then ?

I haven't peered into Richard Nabavi's soul so I can't perform a comparative exercise for you.

I realise that it is very hard for zealots to comprehend but undecided people think quite differently from you. But they are the ones you need to persuade. Both sides in the campaign are doing a terrible job of this. Remain is utterly ineffectual. Leave seems to be seeking actively to deter the undecideds.

It just that you "undecided" people seem to spend all your time ramping the Remain side, I don't think I have heard a single comment from either you or Mr Nabavi suggesting there are merits in the out side, which would lead even the most balanced observer to suggest that your position is at best disingenuous.

Most of my posts on pb about the referendum are buckets of cold water over the Leave campaign but that's largely because pb is chockfull of rabid anti-EU headbangers. You shouldn't infer any great enthusiasm for the EU from that. If I vote Remain, I won't be skipping to the polling booth with a song in my heart as I do so.

Incidentally, I have made the point previously and will make the point again that it may well be that Leave's best chance of winning will be to abandon voters like me in search of other more numerous groups. Just because I'm undecided doesn't necessarily mean that my vote is worth courting if to gain it would entail giving up on more votes elsewhere.

Where I do think I'm more typical is in approaching this as a question of identity. Leave will not win if the public concludes that a post-Leave Britain is either a completely incoherent vision or would be a profoundly reactionary country. Leave needs to explain clearly what post-Leave Britain would look and feel like.

What a post-Leave Britain would look like is surely down to post-Leave Britons to decide.

There is an issue of morality here. If say:

To business you promise EFTA/EEA.
To those worried about immigration you promise Complete Independence.

Then support is maximised but you leave a very large group of people feeling lied to after the referendum.

My brother, a Labour member just posted this. And called it barking death of a major party http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35054253?SThisFB

According to data on Early Day Motions on the Parliament website, since 1989 Mr Corbyn has signed 19,485 motions. Of those he was the primary sponsor of 766 and a co-sponsor on 2,727.

Mr. D, indeed.

blackburn63 said:

I'm happy to rephrase my original statement, 99% of this site have made up their minds.

If I offended anybody by calling them a liar I apologise, it was unfair.

I think you're projecting your own certain mindset onto others. Regular readers on this site would have seen my slowly shift from being on the fence but marginally for remain, to being on the fence, and to falling off the fence and plunging towards leave.

But even given that, I'm still undecided. Good arguments (and perhaps even suitably-targeted FUD) could overcome gravity and send me back over the fence towards remain. Likewise, arguments could accelerate my fall towards leave.

There are several categories of people:
*) Determined leave, who will not be convinced to remain.
*) Determined remain, who will not be convinced to leave.
*) People who have looked into the issues, sway one way or the other, but are persuadable.
*) People who have no idea about the issues but have vague instinctual positions.
*) People who have no clue there's going to be a referendum.

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Plato_Says said:

My brother, a Labour member just posted this. And called it barking death of a major party http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35054253?SThisFB

According to data on Early Day Motions on the Parliament website, since 1989 Mr Corbyn has signed 19,485 motions. Of those he was the primary sponsor of 766 and a co-sponsor on 2,727.

I love that he said beards help make someone sympathetic in Image that is helpful when dealing with the distressed.

JosiasJessop said:

blackburn63 said:

I'm happy to rephrase my original statement, 99% of this site have made up their minds.

If I offended anybody by calling them a liar I apologise, it was unfair.

I think you're projecting your own certain mindset onto others. Regular readers on this site would have seen my slowly shift from being on the fence but marginally for remain, to being on the fence, and to falling off the fence and plunging towards leave.

But even given that, I'm still undecided. Good arguments (and perhaps even suitably-targeted FUD) could overcome gravity and send me back over the fence towards remain. Likewise, arguments could accelerate my fall towards leave.

There are several categories of people:
*) Determined leave, who will not be convinced to remain.
*) Determined remain, who will not be convinced to leave.
*) People who have looked into the issues, sway one way or the other, but are persuadable.
*) People who have no idea about the issues but have vague instinctual positions.
*) People who have no clue there's going to be a referendum.

Zealots have no comprehension that others might genuinely doubt and might genuinely change their mind. They vaguely perceive the possibility, but confronted with the reality they cannot understand what they observe.

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, although (obviously) I'd advocate voting to Leave, I think it'd be best for you to consider how you think the EU will be in 20 years time, and whether that would be good for the UK (or, indeed, the EU itself).

Don't vote based on the rubbish campaigns today or who'll be happy/sad if we stay or leave. Vote based on whether you think it'll be better for us in a couple of decades.

We also should consider what a post-Leave UK would be like in 20 years, and compare the two.

We will continue to globalise whatever happens. I suspect that in or out we'll develop in pretty much the same way.

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-data-roaming-costs-too-much/

This article really is balderdash (as well as being four years out of date).

This means planning ahead rather than using the internet casually.

Planning? Before going on a foreign holiday? What an outrageous idea!

It's the equivalent of walking into a bar in Germany and being told 'here's a glass of wine for €500 (£439) because you're a Brit or a Spaniard'

No, it isn't. You can buy a local product from a local supplier - in the case of mobiles, that's a local SIM card.

Talk about missing the point.

Indeed you did. Data roaming charges have been coming down every year even without the EU sticking its big regulatory boot in - which might make data roaming within the EU cheaper but will make everything else more expensive.

Nonsense. It will not make everything more expensive. Why should closing a rip-off do that? As you implicitly admit, this is long overdue.

Because, as you say, they can. And I don't admit it's overdue - that's an intentional gross distortion of my position.

They can in uncompetitive markets. Domestic markets are competitive (which is why domestic prices are low). So domestic prices won't rise. This is the point that you and UKIP are missing.

If Leavers are going into bat on behalf of big business being able to exploit consumers, they will lose by a landslide.

To answer Alastair Meek's question (though I don't actually think that Leave should have to articulate a unified vision for the next 50 years, unless we are going to ask Remain to do the same).

I would like to see a Britain that is a model of democracy, and given its status as a small independent nation, very aware that its democratic institutions need to be protected and used in order for them to survive.

I would like us to have a thriving low tax and low regulation economy, but paired with a Government that understands that if push comes to shove it may need to act in the interests of vital industries.

We should have more than sufficient armed forces to defend our territory, but to adopt a non-interventionist stance militarily where British interests are not directly affected. Our foreign policy goal should be what it always used to be, achieving a 'balance of powers' whereby peace and prosperity are maintained.

Immigration must be brought under control. If you don't control your borders; you don't control your country, it's really as non-contentious as that. A Government that shrugs its shoulders about immigration isn't worthy of the name. That's not to say we need less or more immigration - I'm not making that judgement. Just that the Government needs to be in control of it. With seas all around us it really shouldn't be that difficult.

On social cohesion I would favour an approach that applied existing laws universally across community groups.

AlastairMeeks said:

JosiasJessop said:

blackburn63 said:

I'm happy to rephrase my original statement, 99% of this site have made up their minds.

If I offended anybody by calling them a liar I apologise, it was unfair.

I think you're projecting your own certain mindset onto others. Regular readers on this site would have seen my slowly shift from being on the fence but marginally for remain, to being on the fence, and to falling off the fence and plunging towards leave.

But even given that, I'm still undecided. Good arguments (and perhaps even suitably-targeted FUD) could overcome gravity and send me back over the fence towards remain. Likewise, arguments could accelerate my fall towards leave.

There are several categories of people:
*) Determined leave, who will not be convinced to remain.
*) Determined remain, who will not be convinced to leave.
*) People who have looked into the issues, sway one way or the other, but are persuadable.
*) People who have no idea about the issues but have vague instinctual positions.
*) People who have no clue there's going to be a referendum.

Zealots have no comprehension that others might genuinely doubt and might genuinely change their mind. They vaguely perceive the possibility, but confronted with the reality they cannot understand what they observe.

An issue for me is that I find it hard to get too emotional about the EU. If we remain in the EU I cannot see it making a massive difference to my life in the next decade or two. Likewise if we leave. There will be small changes, and some of these may help/hinder, but not as much as (say) a Corbyn-led government would.

At least in the short term. And the long-term questions over the EU are why I'm falling towards leave.

If one side or the other can get me emotional about remaining or leaving, they'll have my vote for sure. But I doubt they'll do that.

I expect trade to be 98% the same Leave or Remain - it's the other stuff that influences too much of our lives and future longer term.

JosiasJessop said:

AlastairMeeks said:

JosiasJessop said:

blackburn63 said:

I'm happy to rephrase my original statement, 99% of this site have made up their minds.

If I offended anybody by calling them a liar I apologise, it was unfair.

I think you're projecting your own certain mindset onto others. Regular readers on this site would have seen my slowly shift from being on the fence but marginally for remain, to being on the fence, and to falling off the fence and plunging towards leave.

But even given that, I'm still undecided. Good arguments (and perhaps even suitably-targeted FUD) could overcome gravity and send me back over the fence towards remain. Likewise, arguments could accelerate my fall towards leave.

There are several categories of people:
*) Determined leave, who will not be convinced to remain.
*) Determined remain, who will not be convinced to leave.
*) People who have looked into the issues, sway one way or the other, but are persuadable.
*) People who have no idea about the issues but have vague instinctual positions.
*) People who have no clue there's going to be a referendum.

Zealots have no comprehension that others might genuinely doubt and might genuinely change their mind. They vaguely perceive the possibility, but confronted with the reality they cannot understand what they observe.

An issue for me is that I find it hard to get too emotional about the EU. If we remain in the EU I cannot see it making a massive difference to my life in the next decade or two. Likewise if we leave. There will be small changes, and some of these may help/hinder, but not as much as (say) a Corbyn-led government would.

At least in the short term. And the long-term questions over the EU are why I'm falling towards leave.

If one side or the other can get me emotional about remaining or leaving, they'll have my vote for sure. But I doubt they'll do that.

rcs1000 said:

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.

Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.

China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.

China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.

Barnesian said:

Large multinationals - banks, energy companies, pharmas, telecomms - are extremely powerful because they have the resources to hire the brightest lawyers, accountants, lobbyists and dispense lavish patronage in the form of consultancies, nights at the opera etc. The poor consumer doesn't stand a chance.

If a politician complains about the activities of a multinational they are "anti-business". They are anti the engine of economic growth, employer of miillions of people. If multi-nationals are taxed more, or their prices controlled, then the threat is that consumers will suffer because the multi-nationals will increase their prices to maintain their profits.

This is not a level playing field. I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box (while encouraging small businesses).

The Labour Party needs to find the words and the policies to counter the anti-business label that the Tories have successfully stuck on them. Pro-consumer and pro-small business, perhaps.

It is odd that the Tories are pro-consumer and anti-supplier in the public sector but the reverse in the private sector. They need to be called out on this.

Merry Christmas to everyone. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Now I can relax.

That is Blairism, which in my view has sod all to do with Giddens and his third way but comes directly from Alastair Campbell and the Today newspaper. And though Conservatives may be anti-supplier in the public sector, I see no great evidence they are pro-consumer there or anywhere else. It might be argued that Blairism would still be a successful political framework if not for its eponym's messiah complex.

Luckyguy1983 said:

I would like to see a Britain that is a model of democracy, and given its status as a small independent nation, very aware that its democratic institutions need to be protected and used in order for them to survive.

Small?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Barnesian said:

Large multinationals - banks, energy companies, pharmas, telecomms - are extremely powerful because they have the resources to hire the brightest lawyers, accountants, lobbyists and dispense lavish patronage in the form of consultancies, nights at the opera etc. The poor consumer doesn't stand a chance.

If a politician complains about the activities of a multinational they are "anti-business". They are anti the engine of economic growth, employer of miillions of people. If multi-nationals are taxed more, or their prices controlled, then the threat is that consumers will suffer because the multi-nationals will increase their prices to maintain their profits.

This is not a level playing field. I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box (while encouraging small businesses).

The Labour Party needs to find the words and the policies to counter the anti-business label that the Tories have successfully stuck on them. Pro-consumer and pro-small business, perhaps.

It is odd that the Tories are pro-consumer and anti-supplier in the public sector but the reverse in the private sector. They need to be called out on this.

Merry Christmas to everyone. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Now I can relax.

That is Blairism, which in my view has sod all to do with Giddens and his third way but comes directly from Alastair Campbell and the Today newspaper. And though Conservatives may be anti-supplier in the public sector, I see no great evidence they are pro-consumer there or anywhere else. It might be argued that Blairism would still be a successful political framework if not for its eponym's messiah complex.

Good God. I'm a Blairite! That has really floored me.

Perhaps you are right. The problem with Blairism is its name and heritage. I'll think about that over Christmas.

Sir Bernard Ingham 'Jeremy Corbyn is a pestilence and must be purged'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatchers-former-head-of-press-bernard-ingham-says-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-plague-epidemic-and-a6784291.html

blackburn63 said:

Which eejits?

The same people will be governing us after the referendum regardless of the outcome. This is a strange site, some really insightful and concise postings interspersed with ill considered nonsense.

The referendum is about whether or not we remain in the EU, the General Election is about who governs us. I've no idea who you mean when you say eejit, but I'm assuming you mean those who want to Leave. Therefore plenty of eejits that are currently governing us will still be governing us, the eejits are there already.

The referendum outcome will have a huge bearing on who the next Prime Minister is.

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.

Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.

China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.

China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.

You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.

That post sounds like an episode of the Keiser Report.

ThreeQuidder said:

Barnesian said:

I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box

Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.

That is yet another source of their power. So unilateral action is indeed risky. But we shouldn't cower.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.

Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.

China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.

China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.

Agreed - and the US is not likely to have to face increased calls for political freedoms, either....

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!"
In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!"
In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"

I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.

Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.

Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.

China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.

China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.

You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.

An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.

Luckyguy1983 said:

You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years.

The statement that the US is in terminal decline as a global power has certainly been around for years. One day it will be true.

Btw you're not a professional historian yourself are you?

What nonsense - no economy lives in a vacuum free of pissing off their voters or their tax payers.

See 70s Brain Drain and taxation.

Barnesian said:

Plato_Says said:

Ireland did very nicely thank you by attracting multi-nationals.

ThreeQuidder said:

Barnesian said:

I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box

Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.

Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.

PS It won't.

We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.

Luckyguy1983 said:

You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.

Best read-up on the concerns in China young-man. You are paralleling another universe methinks...!

Plato_Says said:

Apart from landmass - what is your definition of *small* here?

We're the language of teh interwebs, one of world's largest economies, have the Commonwealth, nukes, big NATO player et al.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RobD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I would like to see a Britain that is a model of democracy, and given its status as a small independent nation, very aware that its democratic institutions need to be protected and used in order for them to survive.

Small?

Yes, small. I appreciate we punch above our weight in many areas and long may it continue, but I'm ok with being small. It's europhiles who demand we club together in a big bloc as some sort of empire replacement. I frankly don't give a toss, as long as we can look after ourselves.

Just in terms of population we are the 22nd most populous, of 190odd.

FluffyThoughts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.

Best read-up on the concerns in China young-man. You are paralleling another universe methinks...!

Oh, they have HUGE problems. But they can afford for a whole town to blow up and the wheels just keep turning. Did the American civil war halt the advance of the USA?