Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB/Polling Matters: Pollsters. hedge funds, Heathrow and w

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB/Polling Matters: Pollsters. hedge funds, Heathrow and why is Blair so noisy and Cameron so quiet?

On this week’s PB / Polling Matters podcast, Keiran Pedley and Leo Barasi look at a recent Bloomberg story investigating links between hedge funds and pollsters on the day of the EU referendum, public opinion on Heathrow and the environment and ask what Blair hopes to achieve with his latest intervention (and why David Cameron seems to be so quiet).

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    edited June 2018
    Sigh. Curse of the new thread.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The podcast was interesting in its attempt to explain the Bloomberg exit poll story, dividing it into three facets. And in asking where is Cameron, the suggestion that he places party unity above Brexit echoes the criticism of his running of the Remain campaign but there is no real evidence.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited June 2018
    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,071

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    edited June 2018
    fpt and very ot:

    Pulpstar said:

    Space vehicle engineering tech is horribly behind where it should have been. I'm glad Musk is finally righting that wrong

    Yes but computing etc is miles ahead of what was imagined.

    (Snip)
    There is an interesting argument that the massive and unexpected rise in computing power is the reason why manned space technology is *behind* where people thought it would be in the 1950s and 1960s.

    In the 1950s and early 1960s, it was expected that there would soon be large (by current standards) space stations in orbit, each with perhaps a dozen or more people on board. The US Air Force's cancelled Manned Orbital Laboratory or Russia's Almaz were essentially prototypes of this.

    The reason is reconnaissance and communications: if you wanted to spy on something on the ground, the technology at the time required you to launch a rocket, fly the satellite over, and the satellite would then drop its film payload, which was caught in mid-air and taken for processing and interpretation (e.g. the US's Corona program). This was not time-responsive (if you wanted to examine something quickly, the chances are you didn't have an unused satellite ready) and very expensive.

    So the idea was to have manned satellites capable of significant changes in orbital plane, where the crew would develop film and interpret the images in space.

    Likewise, communications: anything that required communications would have to use valves or the newfangled transistors. The early technology was unreliable and its use in space uncertain, so it was assumed that communications satellties would have people on board, changing valves or transistors and crystals.

    Both these uses for man in space: reconnaissance and communications, became redundant after the integrated circuit became reliable: we could digitally scan images from space and send them down via encrypted links, allowing reconnaissance satellites to stay up for years, and communications satellites are far more capable. And without people in orbit, we haven't really ahd the excess manpower to work out other productive reasons to have them up there.

    So we have massively more unmanned satellites doing things than expected, but find it very hard to find a reason for manned programs.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.

    A couple of points:

    1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.

    2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Sandpit said:

    Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.

    A couple of points:

    1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.

    2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?

    There's a difference between pollution released at x thousand feet, and at low levels during takeoff (and landing). The latter has much more impact on people on the surface and is not affected by planes in the stack.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Sandpit said:

    Interesting podcast, thanks to Kieran and Leo.

    A couple of points:

    1. The Yougov/Sky poll on 23rd June 2016 was an online poll asking their panel how they’d voted, as opposed to the in-person outside the polling station poll which is usually described as an “exit poll”.

    2. Surely air pollution around an airport is much better if planes arrive and land immediately, rather than arrive and spend half an hour going around in circles because there’s a queue for the runway?

    The air quality around airports isn't really affected by aircraft circulating way up in the sky. It's the ground operations that generate the local pollution.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.
    Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    I think it's also about distance. Cameron still has plenty of friends in top-level politics and probably still has plenty of behind the scenes influence. Blair is far removed, as is Major.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.
    Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.
    The Belgium manager disagrees with the pb panel (as possibly does the German coach since yesterday's defeat followed an allegedly morale-boosting win).
    Roberto Martínez struck a different tone to Gareth Southgate by claiming winning their final group game against England is not a priority and insisting protecting his players from injury and suspension was of greater importance.
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/27/roberto-martinez-belgium-world-cup-beating-england-not-priority

    Whatever Southgate decides, England's deeper squad means we should beat Belgium.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited June 2018
    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    edited June 2018
    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Tbh all of the teams have looked weak at different times. France feels like the sleeping giant to me, their team has an insane amount of talent, and I wouldn't want to face them.

    As for resting players, the game against Panama was played at a walking pace. I'd rather we fielded our strongest team and gave them 90 minutes practice playing against a decent opposition that will have more of the ball. And remember we are still new to the 3-5-2 formation also.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,071

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:

    Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Foxy said:

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
    I assume they are going to begin construction in Ireland imminently?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
    I assume they are going to begin construction in Ireland imminently?
    It would be highly amusing to watch them try.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.
    Absolutely. In the 1996 Euros, a boring 0-0 draw in England’s last group match against the Netherlands would have seen both teams through, but we came out with one of the best performances in living memory to win 4-1 and set the country alive. We need to go out today with that attitude from two decades ago.
    The subsequent match against Spain remains the only football match I have ever been to.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Tbh all of the teams have looked weak at different times. France feels like the sleeping giant to me, their team has an insane amount of talent, and I wouldn't want to face them.

    As for resting players, the game against Panama was played at a walking pace. I'd rather we fielded our strongest team and gave them 90 minutes practice playing against a decent opposition that will have more of the ball. And remember we are still new to the 3-5-2 formation also.
    I think it is important that many in the squad have not played a competitive game for a month or more. It is possible that some of them will need to come through into the first team through injury or loss of form and a run out would sharpen them up.

    Whilst I think, like most people, that England are more dangerous with Rashford on the pitch it is really at the back that England have looked vulnerable. I would want to try at least a couple of different defenders to see how they go, possibly a different goalkeeper as well. I would like to see Rose and Alexander-Arnold play, possibly Jones as well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, although partly complacent (a hallmark of both sides), Leave did at least have some positive sentiment behind it.

    I do think people want a positive case for X to be made.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited June 2018

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:

    Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
    The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.

    Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:

    Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
    The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.

    Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.
    Even two years on, quite basic questions sit unanswered. The government's answer at administrative level seems to be to advertise yet another batch of jobs for experts in the hope of recruiting someone who might actually have a clue. Meanwhile most of the politicians steer away from the ultimate poisoned chalice.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:

    Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
    The Indyref was nearly lost because Labour politicians struggled to say anything positive about a UK government run by the Tories. It was only the just emerging Ruth Davidson and latterly Gordon Brown who actually enthused about being British. As a member of the campaign it drove me wild. I am genuinely proud to be British, it's an important part of who I am and I met many who felt the same way.

    The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.

    I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Foxy said:

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
    I'll believe it when the EU starts planning an emergency budget for the £40 billion shortfall.

    That is going to concentrate some minds.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    To say that, you need to consider the alternatives if he had not held the Scottish or Brexit referendums. Whilst there are various scenarios in both cases (and which you favour may depend on your political viewpoint), one thing is clear:

    Things would not have serenely continued the way they were.
    The problem is not holding referenda but the purely negative campaigns which lost one after nearly losing the other. That is Cameron's stupidity. His hubris was in believing he'd win anyway so there was no point in first establishing a commission to decide what the Brexit option actually was.

    Even now, Nigel Farage and UKIP have nothing to say about what our post-Brexit position should be, and Brexit was their raison d'etre so if not even they've given the matter much thought over the past decade, it is no wonder we are in a pickle.
    A commission to decide what the Brexit option was would have been pointless, as 'leave' means different things to different leavers - which is exactly why we are in such a mess now.

    One side or the other - perhaps even several- would have cried foul, that the Brexit option the commission chose was an 'establishment stitch-up'. This is the same reason why lazy Europhobes wanted Cameron and the government to state what 'leave' meant: because it would give them something else to argue against. He didn't fall into that trap.

    More importantly, leave didn't want a settled view; as they only way they won the referendum was by offering everything to everyone: a 'keep-out-the-foreigner' Brexit for the gormless, and a 'business-friendly' Brexit for those worried about the economy. These are mutually incompatible, but without a set view they could sell both of these to the electorate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, although partly complacent (a hallmark of both sides), Leave did at least have some positive sentiment behind it.

    I do think people want a positive case for X to be made.

    You and I may think that, but the evidence from the last few decades appears to be that negative political campaigns are winners - with the possible recent exception of Donald Trump.

    That said, it’s a big ask to hold a referendum where the government is arguing for the status quo. It will almost certainly invite a huge number of people unhappy with the status quo to vote against it, irrespective of what’s actually on the ballot paper.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    DavidL said:

    (Snip)
    The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.

    I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.

    Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Foxy said:

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
    I'll believe it when the EU starts planning an emergency budget for the £40 billion shortfall.

    That is going to concentrate some minds.
    Is it really a GBP40bn shortfall in the near term? Many of the expenses - like pensions - are decades in the future, some relate to contingent liabilities.

    If we crash out early next year, which we won't, the "bill" from a payments perspective will be perhaps GBP15bn, which is a pittance compared to the effect on EU - or indeed UK - GDP from a no deal Brexit.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited June 2018
    Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
    He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.

    As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.

    A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.

    Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    Yes, which is why I’m happy to see him arguing the other side of my own opinion! If he ever agrees with me on anything, I’ll want him banished to one of his many houses, never to be seen in public again!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
    He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.

    As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.

    A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.

    Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.

    You obviously don't like democratic votes
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2018

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    (Snip)
    The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.

    I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.

    Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.
    Some did but those were votes remain was never going to win. There were lots more people like me who wondered if it was worth the candle, worth losing Cameron and Osborne over, whether there were more important things to expend our energy on.

    But the more I looked at what the EU was as an institution, the way it did things and most importantly its direction of travel the more I became persuaded that we should leave. People criticise the incoherence of the Leave vision, and rightly so. But if we had remained what kind of EU did we want to be a part of? Did we want to be at its heart, as per Blair, or in a more associate role hiding behind opt outs? How were we going to resolve the issue of the EZ and QMV? Remain had no answer to these and many other questions. No one really sold a positive vision of what life in the EU would be like in 10-20 years. They deserved to lose.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Here's another Democrat to keep an eye on in November:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6v4CYNSIQ

    It seems to me that there are a lot of veteran (as in ex-military) Democratic candidates this time around.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Staring for hours at the revised draw for the World Cup after the elimination of Germany and Sweden leapfrogging Mexico has not made England's path to the final much clearer. I imagine we shall beat Belgium as we are less cynical about playing to lose and also because our B-team is stronger than their B-team.

    After that, we shall probably face Brazil, who are frightening but no longer invincible and then either France or Uruguay. I am starting to wonder if there is any value in Portugal but they depend hugely on Cristiano Ronaldo.

    I don't think playing to lose against the first strong team that we encounter is wise. It is important that we gel as a team and develop a winning mentality. In each side of the draw is one of two joint favourites (Brazil or Spain). In the one side there are misfiring teams like Argentina and France, but in the other there are overperforming minor countries with strong mentalities like Sweden and Denmark.

    Things could look quite different after the Round of 16 in terms of survivors. We also may well find out that Belgium prefers to come second too, making for interesting gamesmanship!

    I reckon we should go for it, with only a few minor changes, such as Rashford in for Sterling. Beating Brazil in a QF is what a the tournament is all about, rather than an ignominious defeat by Japan.

    As my tickets are for the St Petersburg Semi, I have strong interest in this!
    Despite your interest, I am sure you are right that the psychological and morale benefit from a good win against Belgium far outweighs whatever advantage there might be in a different set of future contests. Particularly for England given our persisting hang ups about underperformance at international football. The better teams can't be avoided for ever.
    In the bottom half of the draw the big teams can be avoided till the final !
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
    He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.

    As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.

    A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.

    Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.

    A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.

    (There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Elliot said:

    Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
    He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.

    As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.

    A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.

    Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.

    A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.
    I'd take a carefree and easy going democracy over a serious one. I'd also prefer one where the constitution develops rather than is held as sacred. And we have had plenty of democratic debate over Europe, including having a major party go to the country on a platform of leaving the EU.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    “Cameron is the worst prime minister since Lord North” Paxman. A total abject failure. He should live a Trappist penitent existence in his little caravan of shame.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    (Snip)
    The In campaign found it incredibly difficult to say anything positive about the EU. Many of the leaders of the In campaign had won a lot of cheap votes over the years by criticising it and pretending to be more sceptical than they actually proved to be. Nick Clegg was an exception but he had been damaged by the Coalition. I really don't feel that way but I can well imagine that those who think that the EU is a worthy institution must have suffered very similar frustrations to those I felt in Scotland.

    I think the lesson in both is that fear is rarely enough. It will win some votes but to get over the top you need to have a convincing case for what you want. Better together found its true voice very much at the last minute and not without some equivocation. The remain campaign did not.

    Leavers found it impossible to listen to anything positive about the EU, and to this day confuse euroscepticism with their own europhobia.
    Some did but those were votes remain was never going to win. There were lots more people like me who wondered if it was worth the candle, worth losing Cameron and Osborne over, whether there were more important things to expend our energy on.

    But the more I looked at what the EU was as an institution, the way it did things and most importantly its direction of travel the more I became persuaded that we should leave. People criticise the incoherence of the Leave vision, and rightly so. But if we had remained what kind of EU did we want to be a part of? Did we want to be at its heart, as per Blair, or in a more associate role hiding behind opt outs? How were we going to resolve the issue of the EZ and QMV? Remain had no answer to these and many other questions. No one really sold a positive vision of what life in the EU would be like in 10-20 years. They deserved to lose.
    I find that a slightly odd argument, as leave had no answers to the massive contradiction - in fact a lie - in their offerings.

    If you didn't see a 'positive' vision of what life in the EU would be like, then either you were not listening, or you did not see it as positive.

    Given your recently-stated views on the migrants in the Med, I'm guessing the latter.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Elliot said:

    Cameron was a constitutional vandal.
    He will go down in history as a complacent buffoon.

    As DavidL says, the Scottish referendum was nearly lost. Astonishingly, Cameron took precisely the wrong lesson and decided he could win any old vote.

    A serious democracy would have had a Commission examine a series of options - let’s call them Norway, Switzerland, and Canada - and asked us to vote first on a “preferred Brexit”. A second vote would have then asked us to Leave under this preferred model, or to Remain.

    Cameron was not serious. He took the country to the casino, and lost.

    A serious democracy would not have vandalised the constitution over 40 years by givimg away powers abroad without any public say on it. You just dislike democracy when you don't get the result you want.
    There's much to be said for Ireland's system of democracy with their STV dail and multiple referenda. Ours is moribund in comparison
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    What a pitiful contribution.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.

    (There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)
    a somewhat onesided analysis Mr J

    both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    What a pitiful contribution.
    Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.

    Buy you evidently differ. :)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at what he has unleashed, and at what has become of his legacy and reputation. I doubt that there is anything at all that he might say which could improve things. In the circumstances he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by hubris and stupidity in following the same negative strategy that had, apparently without his noticing, almost cost the union with Scotland. Ironically, he and some other Conservative commentators think the problem was that Cameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not this again. If you had the temerity to try to make a positive case, leavers behaved in a fairly disgraceful manner. I know, for I tried twice on a relatively minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it was the floating voters who were never given the positive view of the EU by those who wished to remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.

    (There is also thee point that the EU was thee status quo, and it is easier to attack the status quo that it is to actually do anything. This is the reason I expect some of the media to become more pro-EU as Brexit progresses. The new editorship of the Mail is interesting wrt this.)
    a somewhat onesided analysis Mr J

    both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
    Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?

    (Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited June 2018
    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I wonder which politician, with a huge majority could have improved the democratic state of the UK. But chose not to.
    Answers on a postcard
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    What a pitiful contribution.
    Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.

    Buy you evidently differ. :)
    How about "the EU spread shit over democracy"......
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.

    Mr. L, that's the problem with decades of triangulating and then having a binary referendum on the specific topic. There is no centre ground, just two opposing sides, one of which has had supportive words but precise little action for decades.

    The Lisbon referendum-that-wasn't is arguably the biggest single reason we voted to leave. Many voters won't have trusted politicians to give us another chance, ever. For that matter, many didn't believe we'd leave even having voted for it.

    It's one of the major reasons that May's dithering is so unforgivable. It makes it more economically challenging (due to lack of preparation) to leave without a deal, increasing pressure, on economic grounds, to sign up to whatever the EU wants.

    But, politically, if we leave in name only, losing all influence over the EU but remaining ensnared by the red tape of an institution the electorate just voted to leave, there are substantial risks to.

    The far left already squats on the Labour front bench, and there's a small but plausible risk of a new far right emerging, its potential enhanced by a departure in name only. [I'm of the view that a takeover approach, as per the lunatic left and Labour, is unlikely to occur with the Conservatives, because their rulebook isn't ridiculous and their MPs actually appear to understand how their own leadership election rules work].
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at wes he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by huCameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not thi minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it wto remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.

    (There is interesting wrt this.)
    a somewhat onesided analysis Mr J

    both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
    Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?

    (Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)
    I started the campaign 60-40 for Leave but could have been persuaded to hold my nose and vote Remain

    I ended about 80-20 for Leave and a sense of regret that some old bonds would be broken
    What moved my vote was Osbornes obvious lies and Obama's intervention. Nobody on Remain could put forward a positive argument over a six month period and they all sounded shifty as to the future direction of the EU.

    Leave also ran some total crap the £350m I just took as a yeah right and dismissed it. I didn't like Farage but had got used to him as an irritant over the last 10 years. Leave didn't have any strong economic arguments except to say the change will shake things up and thats
    what I think we need.

    So my 20 per cent shift was 10 for Remain having nothing worth saying and 10 for Leave shaking things up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    What a pitiful contribution.
    Sadly, 'leavers spread sh*t over everything' seems an accurate description of the leave campaigns. Irrational might be another.

    Buy you evidently differ. :)
    How about "the EU spread shit over democracy"......
    Yes and no. In a similar manner, a Scottish nationalist could claim that 'Westminster spreads sh*t over democracy'.

    I don't like the political aspects of the EU, and I particularly don't like the direction the EU was heading. But I could see many advantages in being part of a large, loose group of similar-minded countries in an increasingly globalised world.

    IMV we've remover ourselves from the former (which is generally a positive move), but also from the latter, and I am far from sure we will be able to replicate the advantages alone.

    I think the main unanswered question for me over the EU is the following: in the modern world, is it really possible to get effective large-scale collaboration between small- and medium-sized countries without the full economic and political union that I personally dislike?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    So today Leavers are hating Tony Blair. Yesterday it was the BMA. It must be exhausting keeping all that negative energy pent up, ready to discharge on so many different subjects.

    For a group that like to lay claim to patriotism, there's precious little about Britain that they actually like.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Foxy said:

    Tony Blair presumably thinks some things need saying that no one else is saying. He’s right.

    Blair taints everything he touches. No one wants him on their platform, even when he is right.

    Meanwhile, the EU27 is preparing for crash Brexit. Seems sensible.

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1012189435906215936?s=19
    If the EU wants to prepare for tariffs with the UK and the USA, its two biggest export markets, that is up to them
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.

    In 2001, ten years after she left all you had to do was put a Thatcher wig on Hague to sink his campaign. If you were a Thatcherite then, you were seriously out of fashion.

    Ten years after leaving office Blair is in a broadly similar state. In ten years time, Blair will come back in fashion a bit. May and co are accelerating the process.



  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited June 2018

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Mr. Jonathan, disagree very strongly with that. Thatcher has support from the right and dislike from the left (in broad terms). Blair has very little support at all.

    Mr. L, that's the problem with decades of triangulating and then having a binary referendum on the specific topic. There is no centre ground, just two opposing sides, one of which has had supportive words but precise little action for decades.

    The Lisbon referendum-that-wasn't is arguably the biggest single reason we voted to leave. Many voters won't have trusted politicians to give us another chance, ever. For that matter, many didn't believe we'd leave even having voted for it.

    It's one of the major reasons that May's dithering is so unforgivable. It makes it more economically challenging (due to lack of preparation) to leave without a deal, increasing pressure, on economic grounds, to sign up to whatever the EU wants.

    But, politically, if we leave in name only, losing all influence over the EU but remaining ensnared by the red tape of an institution the electorate just voted to leave, there are substantial risks to.

    The far left already squats on the Labour front bench, and there's a small but plausible risk of a new far right emerging, its potential enhanced by a departure in name only. [I'm of the view that a takeover approach, as per the lunatic left and Labour, is unlikely to occur with the Conservatives, because their rulebook isn't ridiculous and their MPs actually appear to understand how their own leadership election rules work].

    A centre ground voter at the moment is a Leave voter who wants more money for the NHS and to nationalise the railways but also liked Osborne's inheritance tax cut and hated the dementia tax.

    They voted for Blair then switched to Cameron in 2010 and have voted Tory ever since
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or Thatcher
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....

    He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturned
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....

    He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
    You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or Thatcher
    Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or Thatcher
    "They've underestimated Notting Hill and they've underestimated me."
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturned
    Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Off-topic:

    I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.

    Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....

    He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
    You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.
    How about reading what I said rather than dreaming about his tainted glory.

    To be honest much of his rule was indeed Tory-lite. It almost certainly benefited me financially.

    I don't like him because he undermined public trust in politics.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    As you know, he doesn't scare me at all. I suspect he'd lose a parish council by election, were he to ever stand for political office....

    He worries me a lot; because of the way his tenure entirely undermined the last vestiges of trust in British politics.
    You mean you don’t like him because he defeated your lot and did things you disagree with. That’s how Corbynites feel too.
    How about reading what I said rather than dreaming about his tainted glory.

    To be honest much of his rule was indeed Tory-lite. It almost certainly benefited me financially.

    I don't like him because he undermined public trust in politics.
    Nah. That’s a line spun, quite successfully, by opponents . Electorate seemed quite happy with him at the time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturned
    Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.
    The Tombstone Group have seen Leaving the EU move from being supported by a tiny minority to a majority, they expect they can do the same with their social conservatism, abortion is just the vanguard.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Off-topic:

    I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.

    Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...

    Unusual to get a young North Korean woman in a Cambridge pub.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jessop, that's essentially the problem the UK faced and which the EU was either unable to understand or unwilling to address. The economic aspect was generally very popular, the political aspect much less so (particularly with QMV giving the eurozone a critical mass).

    It's a shame it came to this, as the Lisbon referendum could've offered a very strong opportunity to signal the UK's dislike of the direction of travel, but the alternative was signing up to something about which many people had grave misgivings.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Most likely it will be some form of work permit ultimately
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or Thatcher
    Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.
    Osborne is little different from Anna Soubry in worldview now
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Off-topic:

    I'm not a football fan (to put it mildly), but yesterday afternoon I was in a Cambridge pub just at the end of the Germany - SK match. Being Cambridge, the pub held quite a wide range of nationalities. As SK scored the first, and then the second, everyone cheered or smiled.

    Except for one young woman sitting at a table amongst her friends, who looked rather disgusted ...

    Theresa May looks younger in the flesh?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    You have to admire the chutzpah of Nick Timothy.

    https://twitter.com/betapolitics/status/1012219606637989889?s=21
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Tim’s losing it. Last night he was positively tumescent about Roe v Wade being overturned
    Yeah, that was very stange. Some tories are odd.
    The Tombstone Group have seen Leaving the EU move from being supported by a tiny minority to a majority, they expect they can do the same with their social conservatism, abortion is just the vanguard.
    They need more socially conservative African and Eastern European immigrants then
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Because Cameron has class.

    Blair has none.

    Please can we have Tony Blair on TV every day moaning about Brexit? I can’t tnink of a better way of generating support for anything than being opposed by the lying warmongerer.
    I don't actually want to see Tony Blair any more than I absolutely have to.
    So long as his ugly mug’s on TV disagreeing with me, then I’m okay with it. :)
    Don't you find yourself feeling sickened whenever you see him?
    No.

    Blair is a national politician. Without exception they tell lies, partly because, at times, voters prefer bright sunlit uplands rather than the bleak landscape of reality. That said politicians in power are a mendacious bunch and too many pretty second rate.

    I find my personal default position is to expect lying incompetence from the body politic and be amusingly surprised when a modicum of honesty and adequacy rises to the surface.
    The truth is that Blair is particularly disliked because he was successful. He unites vanquished Liberals, Cobynites and Conservatives. Thatcher was in a similar position. There is nothing the UK body politic dislikes and fears more than a clever winner.

    Osborne gets the same treatment.
    Osborne is more Mandelson than Blair or Thatcher
    Osborne was hugely successful, too much for May to handle. Would have been really interesting now if he had stayed in the Commons.
    Osborne is little different from Anna Soubry in worldview now
    It’s a big what if. If he had stayed in the Commons he would have played his cards more closely to his chest. Would have been a leader in waiting (or not waiting by now).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg et al think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The nativists aren't happy:

    twitter.com/montie/status/1012235835197001728

    No senior politician has any serious interest in curbing immigration provided they can say we have taken back control. There is enough there to fudge FoM.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018
    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.
    Yes I think there were elements of "right minded people" group think.

    But this was exploded when it became clear Leave would fight almost solely on immigration.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited June 2018
    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.
    His mistake was not being prepared for Vote Leave running the campaign he thought Leave.EU would run.

    In his wildest dreams he never thought the likes of Gove, Hannan, and Carswell would run a campaign demonising Muslims.

    It is common knowledge in Westminster that Gove privately now regrets that campaign.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    He clearly already knew about the morons since only a few months before he'd been affecting to want to leave the EU himself unless it was reformed in some unspecified way.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited June 2018
    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    That was certainly a factor, but coming off the back of the 2015 result there was an element of hubris and ego too.
    Fairly clear his error was in not predicting corbyn would end up as labour leader.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Dave’s quiet because he’s heartbroken about the division and hatred in the country, I know he took the death of Jo Cox quiet badly.

    He’s quite upset about the state of the Tory party too.

    He really screwed up. A relatively decent, bright chap who got carried away by his own mythology. Sad.
    Nah. He was guilty of thinking that the country couldn't possibly vote in favour of anything that Farage, Cash, Redwood, Mogg think is a good idea.

    His error was to think that the country was not chock-full of morons.
    He clearly already knew about the morons since only a few months before he'd been affecting to want to leave the EU himself unless it was reformed in some unspecified way.
    Is this the cue for a Dave's Deal discussion?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    So today Leavers are hating Tony Blair. Yesterday it was the BMA. It must be exhausting keeping all that negative energy pent up, ready to discharge on so many different subjects.

    For a group that like to lay claim to patriotism, there's precious little about Britain that they actually like.

    Coming from you on leavers hating ,you hating 17million people every day.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    PeterC said:

    I expect that David Cameron might feel thoroughly embarrassed at wes he is probably wise to stay silent.

    Yep. He was a clever man, brought down by having been just a bit too clever.
    Cameron was brought down by huCameron undercooked Project Fear.
    I wonder what it will take for positive campaigning to become fashionable again? The Remain campaign’s biggest failure was that no-one made the positive case for EU membership.
    Lordy. Not thi minor fact.

    I'm unsure committed leavers would ever see *any* argument for the EU positively ...
    But it wasn’t committed Leavers who decided the referendum, it wto remain members.

    Edit: @DavidL’s last couple of posts make this point far better than I.
    Yes, partly because leavers spread sh*t over everything.

    Whilst I would not put it as strongly as he does, Mr Meeks does have a point in the way the leave campaigns were run. In part this changed me from veering towards leave to voting remain.

    (There is interesting wrt this.)
    a somewhat onesided analysis Mr J

    both sides ran muckspreader campaigns, personally I couldn't choose between them as to which was worse
    Really? And you viewed them with unbiased eyes?

    (Bias is, of course, a real issue with this sort of conversation. People often see what they want to see. However the way the leave campaigns were conducted were a factor in me changing my vote. to make it clear, I should have been a leaver, and I have argued both for and against the EU in the past.)
    I started the campaign 60-40 for Leave but could have been persuaded to hold my nose and vote Remain

    I ended about 80-20 for Leave and a sense of regret that some old bonds would be broken
    What moved my vote was Osbornes obvious lies and Obama's intervention. Nobody on Remain could put forward a positive argument over a six month period and they all sounded shifty as to the future direction of the EU.

    Leave also ran some total crap the £350m I just took as a yeah right and dismissed it. I didn't like Farage but had got used to him as an irritant over the last 10 years. Leave didn't have any strong economic arguments except to say the change will shake things up and thats
    what I think we need.

    So my 20 per cent shift was 10 for Remain having nothing worth saying and 10 for Leave shaking things up.
    +1
This discussion has been closed.