pwa wrote:you will do it by listening, understanding at some level and responding. Not to racists, but to ordinary decent folk who are fed up with an EU that seems to simply shrug when problems are brought up. Offer us a better EU, one that seems more palatable, and you may get some takers. Or stick to a Them and Us confrontation.
This book by Will Hutton and Andrew Adonis is a good example of listening to and understanding the reasons for the leave vote.
What is very obvious on reading it is that the problems brought up have little or nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with Britain being very poorly governed, for at least several decades, by both Conservative and Labour governments.
None of the solutions to the very real concerns begins with 'First leave the EU...'
In fact leaving the EU will make most of the problems dramatically worse (it's the economy stupid).
It's hard to see any clear way out of the mess. I imagine at least some political discussion is given over to assessing whether the inevitable civil unrest will be worse if Brexit happens, or if it is cancelled.
It is also pretty obvious that any book by Andrew Adonis is going to omit any valid reasons given by people for leaving the EU. We might as well refer people to articles by Lord Ashcroft.
al_yrpal wrote:Continuation of Free Trade with the EU, and the ability to trade freely on agreed terms with whomsoever else we want to, control our own borders and fisheries and restoring the supremacy of our own parliament. Thats the plan, its as simple as that, no what ifs, no obsfucation, no caveats. No point in going round and round in circles..
Al
You've left out the 350 million a week for the NHS. Don't forget - many who voted thought it important. .....
I suspect the numbers swayed by the £350m a week extra for the NHS are diminishing. I believe that it was the older generations that have more need of and more experience of the NHS that regarded the £350m offer as being a deciding factor. But sad fact that older people get older over time and some are no longer with us.
But the youngsters who will be badly impacted by us leaving the EU were a demographic largely supporting remaining and their numbers are increasing (as more get old enough to get given a vote).
Ian
Dominic Cummins the director of the Vote Leave campaign wrote the following in a Spectator article back in January
Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pwa wrote:you will do it by listening, understanding at some level and responding. Not to racists, but to ordinary decent folk who are fed up with an EU that seems to simply shrug when problems are brought up. Offer us a better EU, one that seems more palatable, and you may get some takers. Or stick to a Them and Us confrontation.
This book by Will Hutton and Andrew Adonis is a good example of listening to and understanding the reasons for the leave vote.
What is very obvious on reading it is that the problems brought up have little or nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with Britain being very poorly governed, for at least several decades, by both Conservative and Labour governments.
None of the solutions to the very real concerns begins with 'First leave the EU...'
In fact leaving the EU will make most of the problems dramatically worse (it's the economy stupid).
It's hard to see any clear way out of the mess. I imagine at least some political discussion is given over to assessing whether the inevitable civil unrest will be worse if Brexit happens, or if it is cancelled.
It is also pretty obvious that any book by Andrew Adonis is going to omit any valid reasons given by people for leaving the EU. We might as well refer people to articles by Lord Ashcroft.
pete75 wrote:You've left out the 350 million a week for the NHS. Don't forget - many who voted thought it important. .....
I suspect the numbers swayed by the £350m a week extra for the NHS are diminishing. I believe that it was the older generations that have more need of and more experience of the NHS that regarded the £350m offer as being a deciding factor. But sad fact that older people get older over time and some are no longer with us.
But the youngsters who will be badly impacted by us leaving the EU were a demographic largely supporting remaining and their numbers are increasing (as more get old enough to get given a vote).
Ian
Dominic Cummins the director of the Vote Leave campaign wrote the following in a Spectator article back in January
Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way.
I don't know him, didn't listen to him and certainly didn't take the £350m stuff any more seriously than all the fear stuff from Remain. Personally I think the poshness of Boris and Gove put a lot of people off, rather than drawing them in. The Leave campaign was weak and amateurish compared to the swish Remain stuff.
Starting with people who have shown no clear bias. People who present factual cases without any emotive language. People who are not misrepresenting the facts or slanting the case.
It is easier to spot those who are seeking to mislead just through the terminology, wording and that they are spinning. They also state up front if their sources have a bias. Also you can see who or what they represent, so for example if the head of the IMF speaks up for the EU you can remember that the IMF is one of the pillars of "global imperialism" so they are not going to be representing the interests of the common voters.
When Lord Ashcroft ran his own exit poll on the referendum, you know that he will have picked the best possible questions to ask (and there are some I bet he didnt want asking) but he cant alter how people answered, nor could he remove the questions and answers once it was done.
Giving straight answers to straight questions helps, as you (I think) did about NI borders and WTO earlier.
Last edited by meic on 18 Sep 2018, 3:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
pwa wrote:The Leave campaign was weak and amateurish compared to the swish Remain stuff.
The Leave campaign was highly targetted, using unbranded Facebook adverts to sway individuals according to their posting history. That's what the illegal £600,000 (that we know about) paid for. The Russian state employed an army of social media infiltrators. The Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express ran an anti-EU campaign over decades.
Weak and amateurish it was not.
And we shouldn't forget that many of the leading Remain campaigners had spent their lives blaming the EU for all our problems. I mean, it was hard to take Cameron's support for the EU seriously when he has spent so much time talking it down.
meic wrote:Starting with people who have shown no clear bias. People who present factual cases without any emotive language. People who are not misrepresenting the facts or slanting the case.
It is easier to spot those who are seeking to mislead just through the terminology, wording and that they are spinning. They also state up front if their sources have a bias. Also you can see who or what they represent, so for example if the head of the IMF speaks up for the EU you can remember that the IMF is one of the pillars of "global imperialism" so they are not going to be representing the interests of the common voters.
When Lord Ashcroft ran his own exit poll on the referendum, you know that he will have picked the best possible questions to ask (and there are some I bet he didnt want asking) but he cant alter how people answered, nor could he remove the questions and answers once it was done.
Giving straight answers to straight questions helps, as you (I think) did about NI borders and WTO earlier.
Thanks Meic, I accept your points about acknowledging sources and making judgements about bias. I wonder though if you can actually identify any unbiased sources. I haven't managed to find one, yet.
Ha ha, I read the free 'look inside' bit of that book written by a pair of Euro Drones. How anyone can expect any thinking person to read it without laughing out loud is beyond me. Cloud cuckoo land is sane by comparison. They need to get away from the Establishment Bubble they exist in and mix and talk with some ordinary folk.
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
pwa wrote:The Leave campaign was weak and amateurish compared to the swish Remain stuff.
The Leave campaign was highly targetted, using unbranded Facebook adverts to sway individuals according to their posting history. That's what the illegal £600,000 (that we know about) paid for. The Russian state employed an army of social media infiltrators. The Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express ran an anti-EU campaign over decades.
Weak and amateurish it was not.
And we shouldn't forget that many of the leading Remain campaigners had spent their lives blaming the EU for all our problems. I mean, it was hard to take Cameron's support for the EU seriously when he has spent so much time talking it down.
I took that as the actual campaign not the other elements of anti EU propaganda. As in Boris and Hove show. Not the whole 9 yards of torygraph, daily heil and other long standing anti EU haters. I agree with you that those side campaigners have been highly effective and professional over the years with their anti EU rhetoric under the false premise that their readership supported it. Reality I think is those papers generated the anti EU hatred and nurtured it.
However the Boris and Gove roadshow to me reeked of amateur hour. I'm no fan of Boris except on HIGNFY as the host or as the guest being ripped apart by Angus Deayton or the balding gnome guy or Paul Merton.
I am very sceptical the claims about the Russian interference and certainly the claims about their scale and importance. We have been there so many times before. History always shows such scepticism was justified.
However I would say that as I once drank with some Russian sailors which makes me a Russian bot.
meic wrote:I am very sceptical the claims about the Russian interference and certainly the claims about their scale and importance.
I've no real idea of either.
Social media offers a unique method of interfering though and that they interfere is without doubt, that we, the Americans and pretty much every other nation interfere is also without doubt.
