Odds on result
You must log in or register to see images
Odds on number of votes supporting the motion (out of 650)
You must log in or register to see images
Vin
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Odds on result
Odds on number of votes supporting the motion (out of 650)
Vin
They didn’t do enough to point out the dangers, but those that did were shouted down as being scare mongers.
Losing tonight’s vote of confidence has nothing to do with Labour or Corbyn’s credibility.
It will be down to a bunch of Tory and DUP MPs, who yesterday showed that they had no confidence in the PM’s Brexit Deal and in essence her capabilities, changing their minds tonight, not because they now think that she is capable, but because they want to keep their jobs.
Tonight’s vote for the PM is solely about self preservation. There are several Tory MPs who won their seats by very narrow margins last time and they sure as hell won’t want a rerun based on the mess their party is making across so many areas, such as the NHS, housing, Universal Credit, let alone the car crash that is Brexit.
I think they didn't do enough to paint the benefits of remaining, myself. Data and information doesn't sway the electorate. We had a campaign where the promise of unicorns was opposed by dusty economic forecasts.
Perhaps if the Remain campaign had told people why Freedom of Movement is a wonderful concept (the freedom to live, work and retire across the EU being an example), why sharing something bigger than just the UK is a terrific ideal, why the Single Market makes every single one of us richer, why peace in Europe for 70 years is unique in history, why our lives are enriched by the mixing of cultures in our country, why business loves the EU, how Europe is democratic and why the EU is no longer heading towards being a federal state. Maybe a little about how our shared values make the world a better place and a little bit about why those shared values are a force for good. Sprinkle with the dust of how membership keeps us safer through shared policing and intelligence efforts. Garnish with the extra clout we have worldwide for being part of a bigger entity than just our country.
You know, a picture of the positives rather than "it'll be a disaster if we leave". If there's another referendum, it'll have to be fought differently.
Vin
This is semantics over the language. The other argument was in reply to someone saying the majority didn't vote for Brexit, which while true it is also true that the majority didn't vote for remain either. The use of "want" in that context was to imply that those that didn't vote should have their non votes heard.
In the former I was arguing that want means nothing. I am arguing the same here. If they really wanted to remain they should have voted. As it is no-one really knows if those who didn't vote wanted to remain or leave and thus the argument is spurious to say the least.
In both cases (then and now) I am taking the vote as the only valid indicator.
Nah, doesnt make sense to your point about people not being tired of it. saying people aren't tired of it because by not voting they agreed to go along with it is clearly bollocks.
also previously you were arguing against a point about the number of people who couldnt vote which is why you made that argument.
Quite sure I heard someone at the dispatch box say “ What a ****ing triumph”.
I agree. They did too much "pointing out dangers" (fear) and virtually zero pointing out any benefits. Even what they pointed out as benefits (roaming charges, cheap flights, freedoms) were not presented as positives, they were presented from a fear viewpoint of losing them. There was far too much use of things that benefit those that have a bit of free cash to the point I can only assume they thought that poor folks would stay at home and not vote.
In reality they were trying to tell people who can't afford holidays, work abroad, study abroad etc that they would lose these things. They tried to appeal to the more affluent who in the end were much more likely to be remain anyway.
Instead of Osborne saying "You would lose £4,300" he could have presented it as "You are currently £4,300 better off" whether the number is correct or not.
And instead of saying "There will be WW3" they could have positively put "post war the EU helped cement peace in Europe" rather than trying to pretend that it is the only thing stopping war in Europe in the modern age, as this was very quickly countered without any need of input from anyone else because people immediately thought "Yugoslavia? Ukraine?" That was a really bad one seeing as Ukraine was still on the news at the time.
Even now they keep banging on about hold-ups at Calais yet the Port of Calais chairman keeps saying it isn't true. He did again this week.
The Brexit drama the other night was mostly contrived and made up. "based on a true story" but some parts echoed real thinking of the time. The woman in the remain focus group who said "You are telling us how much we will lose, we have nothing to lose, we have nothing" or similar words. And the made up discussion between Oliver and Cummings in a bar where Oliver says to Cummings that he has "created" a beast. Cummings replied "Exposed it was already there."
That statement was correct. The constant sweeping under the carpet had meant it was already spilling out of the sides. With or without the referendum that was about to spill over.
The politicising of Jo Cox's murder that continues to this day. The use of the word "enabling" to try and shame anyone who votes a certain way.
The Gove statement "people have had enough of experts" wasn't as literal as it is used. People don't mind experts. They just think that experts get things right whereas the economists constantly get things wrong, quite often suiting a political argument. It isn't experts that we have had enough of because we don't consider them experts due to their record.
We alter our food intake, our lifestyle habits, our environmental habits on expert's advice. We stop buying diesel cars on expert advice. We don;t listen to yet another forecaster predicting gloom just as we laughed off Liverpool fans for the past 3 decades when they said "next time it will be our turn." In a similar way will the Liverpool fans turn around at the end of the season (if they do win) and say "See we were right" ignoring the fact the 3 decades of being wrong before?
Experts influence us all the time. Avocados zoom up in sales due to nutrition expert's advice. They drop again due to environmental expert's advice. If a wine is featured/selected by the wine expert on a flagship foody program it will sell out that day.
We are constantly listening to experts. Just not forecasters UK/IMF/EU who lean to their political agendas projecting doom for the UK since the Euro was created.
This era of politics has very short memories. People don't. Labour saying that May shouldn't have triggered A50 until she was ready. They might have forgotten but we haven't. We remember hearing Corbyn within hours of the result saying that A50 should be triggered immediately.
Politicians and remainers saying "No-one said leave meant leaving the SM or CU. the might have forgotten but we haven't. We remember the remainers themselves telling us that was exactly what it meant. And that was always the first story on the news. Always Cameron Osborne and Clegg up first on the news telling us that was exactly what it meant. And the counter? Daniel Hannan said different. While every house had Cameron, Osborne and Clegg beamed into their houses all day long with this message, remainers bring up Daniel Hannan who most of the population have never heard of let alone heard his message.
You might not like it but people have switched off from what they all say. They listen to a bit, read a bit but don't believe much of what is said because the agendas think we are all stupid and have no memories. Still to this day they try and feed their slogans into every interview. They forget we head them all say it was a one-off referendum. What you decide will be implemented. There will not be a second referendum. And in this digital age the second that Mandelson or Kahn say there should be a second referendum, up pops a video with them saying "There will not be a second referendum.
In the same way they say one week "voting leave means X." Next week once the vote is done they say "Voting leave didn't mean X." It is as if they do not realise that everything is recorded and very easy to retrieve.
David Lammy this week lambasting Rod Liddle for linking knife crime to absent father households. Saying Liddle should be sacked........yet Lammy himself said a while ago the very same thing he is now outraged about.
Owen Jones constantly calling out people when he is a panellist for "whataboutery" yet a quick look at his twitter reveals a constant stream of "whataboutery."
The merge these days from journalism to activism. Is Owen Jones a journalist or an activist? Can you really be a journalist if you are an activist? Surely then it becomes propaganda rather than news reporting?
This is why we have people like Corbyn, Farage and other "outsiders" doing well this decade. Because people do not believe the agenda driven centre anymore. The centre thinks everybody is stupid and easily convinced by their wordplay to the point they can do one thing and spin it as another and we will just fall for it.
Labour get fined yesterday and it is minor news yet Corbynites are up in arms moaning about the lack of coverage over Tory spending. They seem to miss that Tory spending has been widely reported for months. The whole leave collaborated with each other but remain didn't. The whole leave used data targeting and profiling when the remain camp admit they used it too.
The constant drive to paint one side of a political argument as bad and the other as good when we can see they are both as bad. So people don;t believe the politicians. They don't believe the news. They don't believe agenda driven supposed experts. But they do believe actual experts that get things right..........
.........unless they are scientists funded by Coca-Cola to research sugar intake for governments to be advised by.
What are you on about. We are being told by those with agenda that people are tired of it... Yes we are tired of what is happening (or lack of action) in politics to do with it. What has that got to do with voting or not? Are you filling in gaps in my sentences?
And no, I was actually saying that those that didn't vote can;t complain and I conceded after someone else posting about "not being able to vote" that a small number of the non voters had a reason other than "can't be bothered" or "couldn't care less."
My point back then was that those who couldn't be bothered to vote quite obviously have no comeback once the result is in. While accepting there were some that couldn;t (for various reasons) that number was small in comparison to those that just didn't bother.
I suspect the above would virtually mirror the argument I made back then. I can recall it but can;t remember how far back it was. I most definitely did say the same as I am saying now though. The vote is done, the result is in. You can't expect to add your voice once the vote is done because you don't agree with the result. "Can you do another day for those of us who didn't bother. We didn't know it would go that way and we want a second chance."
Maybe they should realise that some of us vote at every election, not when we can be bothered, and thus it is really annoying when some come scream on telly about the way a vote went when it doesn't go their way. I have voted in every GE since 1997 when I was 22. I was only 17 in 1992 so couldn't vote in that one. I didn't see my vote win a majority until I was 40 years old. 2010 doesn't count for me. I accepted those results even though for 2 decades it went against me. That is how it works.
"The majority of people actually wanted to leave, hence the result of the vote"
Anyways if you voted 5 times you clearly didn't accept the outcome of the first vote. But thats how democracy works.
Theresa may didn't even accept the result of the last election and tried for a bigger majority.
5 times? You mean 6 and that is only general elections. You are missing one out somewhere. 97, 01, 05, 10, 15, 17.
I have voted in every local and European election as well as a referendum in 2016 plus in recent years Police Commissioner. I was only 3 months old for the 1975 referendum so they wouldn't let me vote in that one. I probably cried.
If you want to equate General elections to referendums then where were the referendums along the way "for people who didn't accept the result of the 1975 one?"
why is there so much sentiment of "they should never have offered it?" Is that how democracy works? denying people the chance to vote?
The argument of people who were 16 in 2016 saying that they didn't get a say. I didn't get a say for 41 years. Maybe they should have re-run that one the day I hit 18 so I could have my say!
You are interpreting my sentence there in a very different way to me. Similarly to how you interpreted the bus sentence differently to me. Maybe it is intentional, maybe not but either way that sentence means that those who didn't vote decided to accept the result by not voting (other then the small amount that couldn't) and thus cannot be counted as "not wanting to leave" nor "not wanting to remain."
We never used to hear this assertion until the referendum. Since then we have had a GE with an assertion that the Tories lost (ignoring that they won handsomely) that there was no mandate for leaving (despite both main parties running on a manifesto to leave) and all sorts of fanciful mathematics arguments of 40% not being a majority etc, etc.
Maybe this line of thinking was created when the Lib Dem vote interpreted getting into coalition as junior partners that all Lib Dem policy would be introduced, moaning like anything when any Tory policy was introduced.
Those educated young people, well informed, believe a party that makes a key pledge to buy their support..........believe a sales pitch and presentation that Nick Clegg has pulled off a blinder (despite losing voteshare and seats from Charles Kennedy's tenure) but oh no, it is the old stupid folks that get duped by politicians and media!!!
Last edited:
No idea. All I know is I just turned the telly over ready for the BBC News and there's a blinking football match on there in extra time. I'll have to watch the commoners ITV news now.
You mean 2 team keep pretending to score but missing and after they get to 10 missed each they say. Lets not bother eh, we've both got reserve sides out because we're not bothered about going through?