Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why from an ad man’s perspective REMAIN’s absolutely right

SystemSystem Posts: 11,008
edited April 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why from an ad man’s perspective REMAIN’s absolutely right to go negative

The multinational Procter and Gamble has long been considered the most effective advertiser in the world. They had one simple formula which they used throughout their product range. They began their ads by showing a problem which was followed by a demonstration of how and why their product was the most effective way of dealing with it.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2016
    FPT
    AndyJS said:

    Apparently Ronnie Corbett had ALS for past 2 years.

    It seems not only has the Grim Reaper been busy taking very famous stars over the past few months, they seem to go in some pretty nasty way e.g. only a few days since Paul Daniels went with a brain tumour. David Bowie with liver cancer.

    It keeps being said that more famous people have departed this year so far than usual, but I'd be surprised if the statistics actually support the contention.
    I am sure you a right. I think it is more that the people dying at the moment were the big draws from an era when many of the media were growing up, so means a lot more to them and thus the attention .

    In contrast, in 2015 Omar Sharif died and 2014 Shirley Temple, but I would think they were a big deal before many of those deciding what to push in the news were really in the biz.

    Just looking at who died in 2014 and 2015, some massive names passed away. Hoskins, Attenborough, Robin Williams, Lauren Bacall
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Interesting read on the commute, thanks!
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Cheers Roger, a surprisingly instructive and witty thread.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579
    Good morning!

    Agree with Roger - as the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest. REMAIN are out of the gate first, to mix metaphors. The challenge LEAVE have is that some of their key figures (Farage) are only trusted by 'true believers' while others are much more sceptical......

    To return to Waterloo, will Corbyn be Cameron's Blucher?
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    FPT

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently Ronnie Corbett had ALS for past 2 years.

    It seems not only has the Grim Reaper been busy taking very famous stars over the past few months, they seem to go in some pretty nasty way e.g. only a few days since Paul Daniels went with a brain tumour. David Bowie with liver cancer.

    It keeps being said that more famous people have departed this year so far than usual, but I'd be surprised if the statistics actually support the contention.
    I am sure you a right. I think it is more that the people dying at the moment were the big draws from an era when many of the media were growing up, so means a lot more to them and thus the attention .

    In contrast, in 2015 Omar Sharif died and 2014 Shirley Temple, but I would think they were a big deal before many of those deciding what to push in the news were really in the biz.

    Just looking at who died in 2014 and 2015, some massive names passed away. Hoskins, Attenborough, Robin Williams, Lauren Bacall
    The other factor is that the expansion of the media, especially television and pop music, from the 1960s onwards means there are now far more stars who are coming (or have come) to the ends of their lives -- it is not just Hollywood any more. So probably both theories are correct: there really are more stars dying, as well as their being more familiar to news editors.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919
    Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579
    On the subject of negative ads P&G sometimes went too far. One notorious ad was the "Shasta Duck" - a shampoo which didn't strip natural oils - so one duck was washed with Shasta Shampoo, the other in a regular shampoo - put in water the Shasta duck swam happily while the regular shampoo duck quickly became waterlogged and struggled to stay afloat..

    ....years later on Blue Peter (or similar program) a kid was asked how he kept his show birds looking so spotless "Me dad washes them in Daz" Embarrassed presenter "You mean he gently dabs a solution on their feathers?" "No, he fills a bucket and sticks them in"......
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,158
    Interesting article. Thank you Roger.

    Oh - and good morning to fellow insomniac PB'ers everywhere!
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2016
    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. Thank you Roger.

    Oh - and good morning to fellow insomniac PB'ers everywhere!

    No rest for the wicked!

    Too early to rise, too late to doze off again...
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia. People are well aware of the failings of the EU. If Remain win they will do so because of fear of the unknown - something the Leave campaign is doing little to deal with at the moment - not because of any degree of support for the EU itself.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919
    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. Thank you Roger.

    Oh - and good morning to fellow insomniac PB'ers everywhere!

    My body wishes I was an insomniac. I am awake against my will and in the office due to issues at work. My bed is a distant floaty dream.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,158

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. Thank you Roger.

    Oh - and good morning to fellow insomniac PB'ers everywhere!

    My body wishes I was an insomniac. I am awake against my will and in the office due to issues at work. My bed is a distant floaty dream.
    :(
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2016

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia. People are well aware of the failings of the EU. If Remain win they will do so because of fear of the unknown - something the Leave campaign is doing little to deal with at the moment - not because of any degree of support for the EU itself.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Is there any polling on this?

    People complain about governments at all levels. My junior colleagues are furious over the new contract, my neighbours are furious about some housing developments planned by the council, etc etc. I am yet to meet anyone who is furious over an EU issue.

    Indeed our government has decided to exploit peoples dislike of local government (despite it being democratic) and place schools under control of self replicating oligarchies.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Good morning (although I'm up for all the wrong reasons).

    Even as someone who intends to vote for REMAIN, I do feel that the positive arguments it has at its disposal is limited. In that sense, I don't blame them for going negative. It's difficult to sell the EU as a democratic, well-working, successful institution.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    3 hours 3 minutes 3 seconds
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2016

    Good morning (although I'm up for all the wrong reasons).

    Even as someone who intends to vote for REMAIN, I do feel that the positive arguments it has at its disposal is limited. In that sense, I don't blame them for going negative. It's difficult to sell the EU as a democratic, well-working, successful institution.

    My point being: what tier of government is ever thought to be democratic, well working and successful as an institution?

    And we do have some say in the EU. Our government refused to support anti-dumping tarriffs on Chinese steel for example just recently.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    The big difference is that the UK Government did not take the win in the Scottish Independence vote as a green light for closer integration and imposing their will further on Scotland. They respected the fact that close to 50% of the Scots voted for independence and acted accordingly afterwards.

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    3 hours 3 minutes 3 seconds

    No wonder insomnia is breaking out all over!
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia. People are well aware of the failings of the EU. If Remain win they will do so because of fear of the unknown - something the Leave campaign is doing little to deal with at the moment - not because of any degree of support for the EU itself.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Is there any polling on this?

    People complain about governments at all levels. My junior colleagues are furious over the new contract, my neighbours are furious about some housing developments planned by the council, etc etc. I am yet to meet anyone who is furious over an EU issue.

    Indeed our government has decided to exploit peoples dislike of local government (despite it being democratic) and place schools under control of self replicating oligarchies.
    I disagree. The Government has decided to do exactly as you say because they believe ideologically that is the way things should be. They are really not interested in what people think of local democracy on this issue.

    You also seem to travel in very refined circles if you have never met anyone who gets angry about the EU. I suspect you live very much within your own comfort zone - as most of us do.
  • Options
    Excellent article Roger.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    Good morning (although I'm up for all the wrong reasons).

    Even as someone who intends to vote for REMAIN, I do feel that the positive arguments it has at its disposal is limited. In that sense, I don't blame them for going negative. It's difficult to sell the EU as a democratic, well-working, successful institution.

    My point being: what tier of government is ever thought to be democratic, well working and successful as an institution?

    And we do have some say in the EU. Our government refused to support anti-dumping tarriffs on Chinese steel for example just recently.
    On your first point: well, that's true I guess. They do say that democracy is the least worst option!

    I don't deny that we don't have some say. I've read bits here and there over the last several weeks regarding the pro's and cons of being in the EU, and I am still left wondering just how much of say we have in the EU.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

    The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the First of April ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :

    Should The United Kingdom Remain A Large Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?

    Remain 01% .. Leave 04% .. Undecided 95%

    Turnout Projection 01.04.16%

    ......................................................................

    WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
    JNN - Jacobite News Network
    ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is ha

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia.
    Is there any polling on this?

    People complain about governments at all levels. My junior colleagues are furious over the new contract, my neighbours are furious about some housing developments planned by the council, etc etc. I am yet to meet anyone who is furious over an EU issue.

    Indeed our government has decided to exploit peoples dislike of local government (despite it being democratic) and place schools under control of self replicating oligarchies.
    I disagree. The Government has decided to do exactly as you say because they believe ideologically that is the way things should be. They are really not interested in what people think of local democracy on this issue.

    You also seem to travel in very refined circles if you have never met anyone who gets angry about the EU. I suspect you live very much within your own comfort zone - as most of us do.
    I have no particular axe to grind over acadamy schools as fox jr is at university, but the programme strips away one of the few remaining areas where democratic local governments can form policies.
    If they really believed in democracy they would not do so.

    I mix with a pretty varied bunch socially, and probably work more with EU migrants more than most (we actively recruit in the EU, indeed our Medical Director is off to Greece recruiting shortly to try to plug the gaps in the medical rotas in August caused by Hunts mishandling of the Juniors contract). Not only do they integrate well they are made very welcome by native staff and patients. I am yet to hear a patient complain about our Greek doctors or Iberian nurses. Indeed they are mostly very charmed by them.

    People get angry when political decisions affect them personally and are otherwise largely indifferent. The anger over planning, of cuts to disability, or the closure of Port Talbot for example. The EU is too airy-fairy for the vast majority of people. It does not bother them.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is ha

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia.
    Is there any polling on this?

    People complain about governments at all levels. My junior colleagues are furious over the new contract, my neighbours are furious about some housing developments planned by the council, etc etc. I am yet to meet anyone who is furious over an EU issue.

    Indeed our government has decided to exploit peoples dislike of local government (despite it being democratic) and place schools under control of self replicating oligarchies.
    I disagree. The Government has decided to do exactly as you say because they believe ideologically that is the way things should be. They are really not interested in what people think of local democracy on this issue.

    You also seem to travel in very refined circles if you have never met anyone who gets angry about the EU. I suspect you live very much within your own comfort zone - as most of us do.
    I have no particular axe to grind over acadamy schools as fox jr is at university, but the programme strips away one of the few remaining areas where democratic local governments can form policies.
    If they really believed in democracy they would not do so.

    I mix with a pretty varied bunch socially, and probably work more with EU migrants more than most (we actively recruit in the EU, indeed our Medical Director is off to Greece recruiting shortly to try to plug the gaps in the medical rotas in August caused by Hunts mishandling of the Juniors contract). Not only do they integrate well they are made very welcome by native staff and patients. I am yet to hear a patient complain about our Greek doctors or Iberian nurses. Indeed they are mostly very charmed by them.

    People get angry when political decisions affect them personally and are otherwise largely indifferent. The anger over planning, of cuts to disability, or the closure of Port Talbot for example. The EU is too airy-fairy for the vast majority of people. It does not bother them.
    Which is why, in spite of all the scare stories about the end of the world if we leave, close to 50% of the population is apparently planning on voting for leaving an organisation they are not really bothered about?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
    Given the REMAIN prospectus includes exclusion of the U.K. from "ever closer Union" I think that might be called "pushing their luck". I expect time will tell.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @Richard Tyndall

    It remains to be seen if 50% even bother to vote on the issue, let alone vote to leave, though Jacks 16% turnout projection does seem unduly pessimistic.

    There are clearly some very heated views on the subject here and other places below the line. I encounter very few people with strong feelings on the subject in the solid world as opposed to the virtual one.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917
    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Lovely short piece from a student writer on playground politics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/31/playground-politics-have-arrived-at-university-if-your-views-dif/
    In political terms, she and I disagreed on practically everything, but that was just the point. I’m a Lefty, but I realised I had more in common with her than I did with any student union activist. We both held the importance of open debate above anything else.

    Recently I read that many of those 1968 Parisian students, whom I had once idealised, were in fact spoilt, middle-class Maoists. They hadn’t intended to debate and reason with the mind. They had wanted to cleanse it. The essence of the current student culture and its ‘safe space’ argument is still the same.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    To return to Waterloo, will Corbyn be Cameron's Blucher?

    Mad, unkempt and East German?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,280
    "you tell them the alternative is Aids"

    Maybe that'll be the next line by Project Terror.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917
    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    In much the same way, a successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.

    Grudging acquiesence is the best either camp can hope for.

    Whst is best for the country is a subjective opinion. I'd say those politicians in the Leave camp will promise anything to get a Leave vote because it suits their personal ambitions and agendas.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    @Richard Tyndall

    It remains to be seen if 50% even bother to vote on the issue, let alone vote to leave, though Jacks 16% turnout projection does seem unduly pessimistic.

    There are clearly some very heated views on the subject here and other places below the line. I encounter very few people with strong feelings on the subject in the solid world as opposed to the virtual one.

    Yep, that's my experience too. Those who care really care. Most don't seem to be that bothered.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
    Given the REMAIN prospectus includes exclusion of the U.K. from "ever closer Union" I think that might be called "pushing their luck". I expect time will tell.
    If you believe Remain then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    "you tell them the alternative is Aids"

    Maybe that'll be the next line by Project Terror.

    Surely vote Remain for more rapes and murders is the lowpoint on either side so far:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/revealed_free_movement_of_criminals_is_a_risk_to_our_security
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    In much the same way, a successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.

    Grudging acquiesence is the best either camp can hope for.

    Whst is best for the country is a subjective opinion. I'd say those politicians in the Leave camp will promise anything to get a Leave vote because it suits their personal ambitions and agendas.

    Probably fair, in 90% of cases. I suspect there are more "true believers" on the Leave side. Michael Gove is a good example - doubt that Leave has been positive for his career, and I suspect he doesn't really care
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
    Given the REMAIN prospectus includes exclusion of the U.K. from "ever closer Union" I think that might be called "pushing their luck". I expect time will tell.
    If you believe Remain then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
    Not as disappointed as the LEAVERS who think immigration is going to change substantially
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930
    edited April 2016
    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    tlg86 said:


    The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did.

    Theresa May — why is she regarded so highly?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917
    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,921


    Which is why, in spite of all the scare stories about the end of the world if we leave, close to 50% of the population is apparently planning on voting for leaving an organisation they are not really bothered about?

    Close to 50% of the electorate who can be bothered to vote, not the population.

    The turnout figures will be interesting. If 66% of the electorate voted at the 2015 GE, and the EU referendum gets 55%, then it shows a large proportion of the electorate are 'bothered' enough about the EU, either way, to vote.

    If remain gets 55%, then it will (I think!) get a large number of voters than voted for the Conservatives in 2015 (36.9% of 66.1%). Likewise for leave - it'd be about the same as the Conservative GE share from head-maths. You can choose to swap those positions. ;)

    Hence such a strong vote either way could be seen as a more valid mandate than the government's.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,921

    "you tell them the alternative is Aids"

    Maybe that'll be the next line by Project Terror.

    Yes, leave might play that line. ;)
  • Options
    BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    The idea that people view the EU in the same way they view other tiers of Government is risible. And you don't have to sell it as an evil dystopia. People are well aware of the failings of the EU. If Remain win they will do so because of fear of the unknown - something the Leave campaign is doing little to deal with at the moment - not because of any degree of support for the EU itself.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Is there any polling on this?

    People complain about governments at all levels. My junior colleagues are furious over the new contract, my neighbours are furious about some housing developments planned by the council, etc etc. I am yet to meet anyone who is furious over an EU issue.

    Indeed our government has decided to exploit peoples dislike of local government (despite it being democratic) and place schools under control of self replicating oligarchies.
    Indeed. The democratic deficit of unelected institutions thrust upon us by Westminster - Academies and LEPs spring to mind - is far greater than that of the EU. Moreover, they have much more direct influence over things that really matter; education and economic growth.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,579

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    Another similarity with the Nats - there are some Nats who believe independence is worth it "whatever the cost" - that's a perfectly logical position- but not that of the SNP who lied about the cost - or the majority of Scots.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    What's missing from the campaigns so far on both sides is a logical message grid or ladder - there's a skip load of tit for tat My 200 signatories are better than Your 200, and little strategy or consistency.

    This leads to a complete scattergun of slogans that appeal to the Already Decided, and the rest just feel bombarded by context free claims that rise up like a twitter hashtag and are gone within hours never to be repeated. Very EdM.

    Hence we get Remain starting with security [a big card to play] and ending up a few weeks later talking about premiership footballers or roaming phone charges. And visiting every space inbetween. Now creating fear in the minds of football fans may be a tactic worth pursuing - however, by making everything a potential crisis - it devalues the whole point of *scary*.

    Leave is equally all over the place - IMO because it's not structured either and isn't setting the agenda often enough. Rebuttal is occupying too much airtime. Now that's a consequence of several factors, but hopefully the selection of a single lead organisation will iron much of that out. The Tata crisis is a total gift - Leave aren't capitalising on it enough - talking about the wider context/being a symptom for other businesses etc.

    As a PR person, I think there's a lot of opportunity for both sides to up their game in the media, ruining your credibility with hyperbole doesn't do anyone any good.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    It will matter from the perspective that Charles mooted: you won't end up with positive buy in for the end result. For dedicated Leavers anything is better than the EU membership, but most people aren't dedicated Leavers. Again, there are strong similarities with the Scottish referendum: dedicated separatists wanted an international frontier and would have said anything to get one, knowing that a Yes vote was irreversible. Had they been successful there would be many millions of Scots feeling deceived and much worse off today. That would not have been good for Scotland.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    Donald Trump has just announced that he will quit the US presidential race.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    We used to call that the New & Improved Pot Noodle strategy - a very marginal alleged improvement of a product/service that doesn't convert many non-eaters.
    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    Another similarity with the Nats - there are some Nats who believe independence is worth it "whatever the cost" - that's a perfectly logical position- but not that of the SNP who lied about the cost - or the majority of Scots.
    I would certainly agree that my position is that any of the proposed alternatives outside the EU are better than any of the available alternatives staying inside. To be fair that has also been the position of a lot of the prominent leavers. They may not agree on what our future relationship should be but they all agree that any of those futures is better than what we have now or are likely to have inside the EU in the future.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    Donald Trump has just announced that he will quit the US presidential race.

    Is that because of his marriage proposal to Hillary?
  • Options

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    Another similarity with the Nats - there are some Nats who believe independence is worth it "whatever the cost" - that's a perfectly logical position- but not that of the SNP who lied about the cost - or the majority of Scots.
    I would certainly agree that my position is that any of the proposed alternatives outside the EU are better than any of the available alternatives staying inside. To be fair that has also been the position of a lot of the prominent leavers. They may not agree on what our future relationship should be but they all agree that any of those futures is better than what we have now or are likely to have inside the EU in the future.
    Test

  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Donald Trump has just announced that he will quit the US presidential race.

    Is this April Fools? :mrgreen:
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Meanwhile, I hear Trump 'can't' rule out a nuclear attack on Europe. And that's on top of those problematic abortion comments....
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    It will matter from the perspective that Charles mooted: you won't end up with positive buy in for the end result. For dedicated Leavers anything is better than the EU membership, but most people aren't dedicated Leavers. Again, there are strong similarities with the Scottish referendum: dedicated separatists wanted an international frontier and would have said anything to get one, knowing that a Yes vote was irreversible. Had they been successful there would be many millions of Scots feeling deceived and much worse off today. That would not have been good for Scotland.
    But, and this is my point, what could they have done about it? The SNP vote might have dropped to where it was in 50’s, but could they have returned torUK?

    (Actually, Scotland probably could, more easily than UK could return to the EU!)
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    What's missing from the campaigns so far on both sides is a logical message grid or ladder - there's a skip load of tit for tat My 200 signatories are better than Your 200, and little strategy or consistency.

    This leads to a complete scattergun of slogans that appeal to the Already Decided, and the rest just feel bombarded by context free claims that rise up like a twitter hashtag and are gone within hours never to be repeated. Very EdM.

    Hence we get Remain starting with security [a big card to play] and ending up a few weeks later talking about premiership footballers or roaming phone charges. And visiting every space inbetween. Now creating fear in the minds of football fans may be a tactic worth pursuing - however, by making everything a potential crisis - it devalues the whole point of *scary*.

    Leave is equally all over the place - IMO because it's not structured either and isn't setting the agenda often enough. Rebuttal is occupying too much airtime. Now that's a consequence of several factors, but hopefully the selection of a single lead organisation will iron much of that out. The Tata crisis is a total gift - Leave aren't capitalising on it enough - talking about the wider context/being a symptom for other businesses etc.

    As a PR person, I think there's a lot of opportunity for both sides to up their game in the media, ruining your credibility with hyperbole doesn't do anyone any good.

    With regards to steel, the EU listened to the UK and the UK got what it wanted. It's a prime example of the UK not being marginalised and ignored.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,280
    Pulpstar said:

    Donald Trump has just announced that he will quit the US presidential race.

    Good one. Had me for a nanosecond!
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    It will matter from the perspective that Charles mooted: you won't end up with positive buy in for the end result. For dedicated Leavers anything is better than the EU membership, but most people aren't dedicated Leavers. Again, there are strong similarities with the Scottish referendum: dedicated separatists wanted an international frontier and would have said anything to get one, knowing that a Yes vote was irreversible. Had they been successful there would be many millions of Scots feeling deceived and much worse off today. That would not have been good for Scotland.
    But, and this is my point, what could they have done about it? The SNP vote might have dropped to where it was in 50’s, but could they have returned torUK?

    (Actually, Scotland probably could, more easily than UK could return to the EU!)

    I agree completely. My argument is not with you, it's with Chas.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,917

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Donald Trump has just announced that he will quit the US presidential race.

    You actually made me do a google search, you bastard...

    ;)
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,314
    First two thirds, patently true. Last part dishonest bollocks.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Whilst Labourites can only look on in awe at the brilliant job the Tories are doing compared to their own leader. :wink:

    "I'm launching a petition, it's that serious..." to recall Parliament, and the petition won't be reviewed until after Parliament is back in session anyhow.
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Southam Observer posted....thread's getting a bit long .... "Ia successful Leave campaign promising all things to all voters is going to leave many of its erstwhile supporters very angry.”

    From the point of view of a dedicated Leaver, does that matter? If we leave the EU and Remain’s Ten Plagues, or even some of them, do materialise,then it will have been the EU’s fault anyway. And “plucky little Britain” will fight against adversity..
    Or something like that.

    It will matter from the perspective that Charles mooted: you won't end up with positive buy in for the end result. For dedicated Leavers anything is better than the EU membership, but most people aren't dedicated Leavers. Again, there are strong similarities with the Scottish referendum: dedicated separatists wanted an international frontier and would have said anything to get one, knowing that a Yes vote was irreversible. Had they been successful there would be many millions of Scots feeling deceived and much worse off today. That would not have been good for Scotland.
    But, and this is my point, what could they have done about it? The SNP vote might have dropped to where it was in 50’s, but could they have returned torUK?

    (Actually, Scotland probably could, more easily than UK could return to the EU!)

    I agree completely. My argument is not with you, it's with Chas.

    I think we are agreeing...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2016
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
    Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.

    The EEA/EFTA option will be seen as an attempt to stay in the EU in all but name and a betrayal of democracy. It would destroy the Conservative party, and perhaps even rejuvenenate the kipper dead parrot.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,921
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
    It may not be their primary reason, but it may be an important secondary reason. I can also imagine that there is a certain reticence to admitting immigration as being their primary reason.

    But they're noisy. When it comes to any negotiations they'll be screeching: "We were promised an end to immigration!" or somesuch. The EEA'ers are much quieter in comparison.

    It's where leave's lie will come undone. But leave know they won't be at the receiving end of the flack for their deception.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Whilst Labourites can only look on in awe at the brilliant job the Tories are doing compared to their own leader. :wink:

    "I'm launching a petition, it's that serious..." to recall Parliament, and the petition won't be reviewed until after Parliament is back in session anyhow.

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Good grief. What next? An opposition leader on a husky sled?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
    Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited April 2016
    Post WW2, France and Germany decided to create a Common Market. Once begun, politicians thought that political union might be a good idea. It will prevent wars, foster European co-operation and generally be a nice idea.

    But nationalism still existed so, they soft-pedalled the union bit. Why are we discussing trade deals and political union still as the goal? There's no reason why we can't have enhanced trade without political union, yet no one wants to talk about it.

    In advertising terms, the conversation is going like this ... "I'd like a basic car to provide me with transport."

    Salesman ... "We have a top of the range, gas-guzzling luxury car which will also provide other services."

    "I don't want the other services."

    "They came as a package - you have no choice."

    An interesting marketing strategy.

    So Remain is claiming ... "If you don't keep this car, you will have to walk, you'll be caught in a thunderstorm and die of exposure."

  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.

    This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.

    Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.

    The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.

    Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @CD13

    “at least as far reaching as those under The Treaty of Rome. Britain has for generations thought of herself as a power that was different in kind. Proudly so. It is this sense of distinctiveness that (the antis) play upon when they promise ‘independence’ by return of post. But their prospectus ignores the fact that almost every major nation has been obliged…to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units.”

    Mrs Thatcher in 1975 as quoted here,:

    http://infacts.org/maggies-1975-pro-europe-case-remains-strong-today/

    We don't have many politicians that speak so clearly nowadays.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
    Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.

    The EEA/EFTA option will be seen as an attempt to stay in the EU in all but name and a betrayal of democracy. It would destroy the Conservative party, and perhaps even rejuvenenate the kipper dead parrot.
    They haven't been sold a lie.

    The Leave campaign is seeking to leave the EU. Supporters will get that if they win

    The shape of the long-term relationship - as an agreement between sovereign entities - is up to the government of the day. People who want to stop immigration are free to campaign for that while those who membership of EEA/EFTA can argue for that. Whoever wins that argument, wins that argument - and if those who disagree manage to win a majority of the house of commons then they can change that policy.

    The future of the Conservative Party is irrelevant.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
    Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
    Sure, it can be fatal for the politicians concerned to think they have mass popular support for their policy. But if they do then the electorate gets to fire them.

    But 5 years of bad government and problems for a political party are much less significant than a lack of popular buy-in to a fundamental question of our governance and role in the world
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The more I read the competing arguments - it seems to boil down more and more to a mindset - do you want to be part of this club/change your ways to fit in and hope to get a position of power on their board. Or do you feel that the club membership fees could better spent, and think you're more advantaged joining a different one.

    There's not really much to reconcile here - those who like being in this one as it suits their personality and personal circumstances aren't thinking the same way as those who feel stifled.

    That's why I totally disagree with those who like to get all patronising on either side. The insight required to appeal to the genuine WTF Should I Do segment is in short supply all round.
    CD13 said:

    Post WW2, France and Germany decided to create a Common Market. Once begun, politicians thought that political union might be a good idea. It will prevent wars, foster European co-operation and generally be a nice idea.

    But nationalism still existed so, they soft-pedalled the union bit. Why are we discussing trade deals and political union still as the goal? There's no reason why we can't have enhanced trade without political union, yet no one wants to talk about it.

    In advertising terms, the conversation is going like this ... "I'd like a basic car to provide me with transport."

    Salesman ... "We have a top of the range, gas-guzzling luxury car which will also provide other services."

    "I don't want the other services."

    "They came as a package - you have no choice."

    An interesting marketing strategy.

    So Remain is claiming ... "If you don't keep this car, you will have to walk, you'll be caught in a thunderstorm and die of exposure."

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
    Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.

    The EEA/EFTA option will be seen as an attempt to stay in the EU in all but name and a betrayal of democracy. It would destroy the Conservative party, and perhaps even rejuvenenate the kipper dead parrot.
    They haven't been sold a lie.

    The Leave campaign is seeking to leave the EU. Supporters will get that if they win

    The shape of the long-term relationship - as an agreement between sovereign entities - is up to the government of the day. People who want to stop immigration are free to campaign for that while those who membership of EEA/EFTA can argue for that. Whoever wins that argument, wins that argument - and if those who disagree manage to win a majority of the house of commons then they can change that policy.

    The future of the Conservative Party is irrelevant.
    I hope indeed that the Conservative party becomes irrelevant again!

    All the polling shows that Leave is driven by anti-immigration feeling. It will be politically impossible to retain the 4 freedoms even if they were on offer, and I am not sure that they will be.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    In immigration the Leave side has the best negative. That's why I think they'll win on a low turnout.

    It's certainly the most straight-forward of issues to campaign on. The current government pretended they cared about this issue but the last six years have shown that they care even less about it than Labour did. I think it's unlikely to be enough to make the difference but it could get uncomfortable for the Tories.

    It'll be close. But the real fun begins after a Leave vote when we discover EEA membership means no change to immigration rules and the Chinese, Indians, Americans etc are not that interested in giving us trade deals that give us greater access to their markets than we would get as an EU member state.

    The EEA has a better record of securing trade deals faster than the EU.

    Yep - and it also means free movement of people. That's my point. If you're voting Leave to get bilateral trade deals (details to be determined, may or may not be better than terms achievable inside EU) you'll be fine with EEA membership. If you're voting Leave to "take back control of our borders" you'll be furious.

    Wasn't there some polling recently which said (I think) something like 35% of Leave voters see immigration as the primary reason?

    17% of voters disgruntled (assuming a marginal victory for leave) - but probably 10% of the population - is a larger number than ideal, but manageable in a democratic society
    Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.

    Hysterical considering the extent that Remain have been running Project BareFacedWhoppers for the last couple of months. Pot/Kettle situation.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,970
    Good morning, everyone.

    I agree with Mr. Roger, up to a point. Negative is fine, but overblown negative diminishes credibility, and that then affects how seriously more sensible negative arguments are taken. Both sides are guilty of hyperbole and a lot of people seem to be feeling bewildered, and with little trust in either side.

    In more exciting news, The Adventures of Sir Edric is now available to buy. Huzzah!:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK/

    At the moment it's the frankly disgraceful price of 99p, but it's going to go up in coming weeks (hope is the lower price will help spur early sales, get more reviews, etc).

    Do give check the sample and see if it's your cup of tea.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
    Given the REMAIN prospectus includes exclusion of the U.K. from "ever closer Union" I think that might be called "pushing their luck". I expect time will tell.
    If you believe Remain then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
    Not as disappointed as the LEAVERS who think immigration is going to change substantially
    Yeah, that's a good one to be smug about.... sorely disappointed voters have a habit of voting for people like... Trump. It wouldn't be a very happy future for the Tories if they stay Cameroon and the 30-35% of the electorate that is solid LEAVE decide they cant trust them on Europe any more. Quite a lot of voters didn't vote kipper last time because they thought they could trust the Tories on the EU, now they know they can't.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
    Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
    Sure, it can be fatal for the politicians concerned to think they have mass popular support for their policy. But if they do then the electorate gets to fire them.

    But 5 years of bad government and problems for a political party are much less significant than a lack of popular buy-in to a fundamental question of our governance and role in the world
    The EU referendum takes place with politics at a very low ebb, with almost all arguments being a choice being between the status quo and turning the clock back.

    As such both campaigns are inherently negative. Neither speaks to me.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Dr Fox,

    Perhaps the car analogy can be stretched too far, but when I buy one I don't feel the need to pay for a chauffeur too.

    "But without a chauffeur, you might get lost. And you're not an experienced driver are you?"

    i was never a Maggie fan, but I've no problem with Remainers who want union on more levels. It's a perfectly respectable opinion. Just not mine.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,664

    Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.

    Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
    PClipp said:

    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.

    This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.

    Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.

    The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.

    Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
    They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I received a begging letter from CCHQ yesterday re May 6th, I deleted it.

    I live in an area where UKIP are pretty popular and at the last locals - my ward ended up split Tory/Kipper.

    The constant attempt on here to claim that Leave = end of immigration flies in the face of the vote. Many Leavers do want to curb immigration. If they vote Leave they've a chance to achieve that or at least be a great deal choosier about who we admit/deport - Remain isn't offering it at all.
    Indigo said:

    "The advantages of a negative campaign by REMAIN are obvious, the unknown can be made to seem a scary place. By contrast for the LEAVERS dystopian visions are a difficult sell when the EU has been with us for 40 years."

    It is hard to sell the EU as an evil dystopia as it plainly is not. Sure there are grumbles about decisions made in Brussels, but the grumbles are also to be found at all other tiers of government. Councils, Westminster, devolved assemblies - the lot. Indeed mostly people are very unhappy about decisions made at these other tiers (planning permission for councils, failure to back British Manufacturing, imposition of disastrous NHS policies etc)

    The first rules of sales are to know the product and to believe in the product. Leave cannot even agree what the product is!

    Good thread roger.

    This is why, even after a Remain win, the problem will not go away and this will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future.
    Another similarity with the Nats.....

    There is no chance the EU will act in a similar way. Any vote for Remain will be taken as a clear sign of support for the EU project and for an acceleration of plans for a closer Union. Put simply, the EU do not respect the views of the people.
    Given the REMAIN prospectus includes exclusion of the U.K. from "ever closer Union" I think that might be called "pushing their luck". I expect time will tell.
    If you believe Remain then you are going to be sorely disappointed.
    Not as disappointed as the LEAVERS who think immigration is going to change substantially
    Yeah, that's a good one to be smug about.... sorely disappointed voters have a habit of voting for people like... Trump. It wouldn't be a very happy future for the Tories if they stay Cameroon and the 30-35% of the electorate that is solid LEAVE decide they cant trust them on Europe any more. Quite a lot of voters didn't vote kipper last time because they thought they could trust the Tories on the EU, now they know they can't.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:



    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    Sounds like the 2015 Tory party campaign and explains the mess they are in now.
    Yes, although I think it is more tolerable in a general election because (a) outcomes don't change much in reality and (b) we can kick the buggers out in 5 years
    Disagree. Both Blair and Cameon confused winning a general election on 30 ish percent on the back of a negative campaign for popularity. It leads to bad government and a toxic disconnect for the winning party.
    But you are almost always going to get that with more than two parties. How many countries with 4-5 parties have an election winner with 50%+ of the vote. You always get a coalition, in which case the deals are done in secret meetings, and end up pleasing the supporters of none of the parties. In a PR system it would be a Tory/Kipper Coalition now, can't see the "progressive minority" thinking that was a step in the right direction.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:



    Doesn't it bother you that they will have been sold a lie? Project fib in action once more.

    The EEA/EFTA option will be seen as an attempt to stay in the EU in all but name and a betrayal of democracy. It would destroy the Conservative party, and perhaps even rejuvenenate the kipper dead parrot.

    They haven't been sold a lie.

    The Leave campaign is seeking to leave the EU. Supporters will get that if they win

    The shape of the long-term relationship - as an agreement between sovereign entities - is up to the government of the day. People who want to stop immigration are free to campaign for that while those who membership of EEA/EFTA can argue for that. Whoever wins that argument, wins that argument - and if those who disagree manage to win a majority of the house of commons then they can change that policy.

    The future of the Conservative Party is irrelevant.
    I hope indeed that the Conservative party becomes irrelevant again!

    All the polling shows that Leave is driven by anti-immigration feeling. It will be politically impossible to retain the 4 freedoms even if they were on offer, and I am not sure that they will be.
    I don't believe it does. It was posted on a thread a couple of days ago which had it (IIRC) at around 35-40% as a key driver. I think the most important was the ability to make our own laws.

    Does anyone have a link?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    44 minutes 44 seconds
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    kle4 said:

    Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.

    Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
    PClipp said:

    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.

    This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.

    Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.

    The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.

    Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
    They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
    But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
  • Options
    JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    So the minimum wage is jacked up by several times the inflation rate, the government is still spending millions more every hour than it raises in taxes, and clamour grows for nationalisation of an industry losing money hand over fist

    Have I been in a coma and woken up to a Corbyn government?!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,314
    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    44 minutes 44 seconds

    I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    So the minimum wage is jacked up by several times the inflation rate, the government is still spending millions more every hour than it raises in taxes, and clamour grows for nationalisation of an industry losing money hand over fist

    Have I been in a coma and woken up to a Corbyn government?!

    Yes.

    Today's the day.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited April 2016


    If you wield 100% of the power, because you won 50% of the seats, on 37% of the vote and just 24% of the electorate, you should govern with consensus in mind. You are not popular.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,664

    So the minimum wage is jacked up by several times the inflation rate, the government is still spending millions more every hour than it raises in taxes, and clamour grows for nationalisation of an industry losing money hand over fist

    Have I been in a coma and woken up to a Corbyn government?!

    No, but when cabinet ministers resign saying the government's core message on austerity is a load of cobblers, and a large number of Tories presumably agree, there's no appetite to control spending beyond that already achieved.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection Countdown :

    44 minutes 44 seconds

    I've never seen your referendum projection as I'm at work by 9 and only periodically pop in to pb during the day if I get a chance. Looks like today will be the same.
    I feel for your impending deprivation ....

    Exclusive Just4EU .... change is in the air .... :smile:
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,921
    Indigo said:

    kle4 said:

    Excellent thread header from Roger. Personally I am sorry that what he says is correct as the idea of fear winning for either side seems wrong to me. But I can't argue with anything in the article.

    Agreed. Fear works, though I wish it didn't. Many potential positives about the eu also have limited appeL as they require bring enthusiastic about more integration which few seem to want here.
    PClipp said:

    Charles said:

    Thanks Roger, an interesting piece. I'm sure you are right on the technicalities, but it's rather missing the point.

    A general election is a choice between two governments, so knocking the opposition makes you a better alternative. And it's not a permanent choice.

    The referendum is a binary choice, yes, but it shouldn't just be seen as "X is worse therefore I will vote to do Y". The problem is that, if you do that, you end up with a dissatisfied population when they realise that nothing much has changed.

    A purely negative campaign may win the vote for Remain, but it won't end up binding the people into a shared vision for Europe. The best they can hope for from this strategy is grudging acquiescence - arguably the worst of all results.

    It's a classic case of politicians doing what is best for themselves personally rather than what is best for the country

    A very good point by Charles. But it goes a bit further than that, I think.

    This is not a binary choice. The third option is a throughly negative one towards the whole issue.

    Negative campaigning may win the referendum (which for some people is all that matters). But, as Roger says, the negativity sticks.

    The result could be a growth (increased growth?) of anarchist sentiment. In its strongest form, this is very destructive indeed.

    Is this what Caameron, Farage & Co want to bring about?
    They probably see no alternative if they are to win. Which I. Sure they all think is good for the country, or rather as good for the country as can be managed, in the absence of a way to win and harmonise matters
    But it's all such pointless destructive humbug. Cameron is going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation, and we will leave the EU within the next decade anyway, because it is heading in a fundamentally different direction to the UK.
    Or alternatively, the manic europhobes are going to screw over the Tory party potential for a generation (or ten years).

    It's not as if they don't have a track record for it ...
This discussion has been closed.