The proportion of the grey vote (and nearly grey vote) was always a shoe in. That would make up half of the leave vote. They didn't need persuading. Neither did the actual people who suffered in the jobs market. Similarly the half a million actual racists / bigots (which is smaller than most other countries) did not need persuading. This like most close votes was about the 10% of "undecideds" and no-one knows how many of them were not undecided and "shy"leavers. It is all very well the young saying they have been betrayed but when less than 40% of them voted how many of those that are complaining didn't vote? And why not? I think that it needs to be understood that there are a lot of people these days that have views that others try to suggest are shameful and so you get lots of undecideds which aren't really undecided. They are people that do not want others calling them names for having an opinion different to theirs. This is the second vote in 2 years where a large proportion of the undecideds weren't undecided. They were just "shy". It is patronising to be told that x party or x leader needed to be more vocal and that people would follow like sheep.
"Mr Farage, beware the horse's head. Beware the horses head. That is all I wanted to say" please log in to view this image
Juncker did the same "Why are you here?". And Marine Le Pen was worse than Farage. You can't just keep calling these people names. That doesn't stop people voting for them. you have to address the issues that gives them the support and it isn't all about racism and bigotry. They prey on the weaknesses of mainstream parties and are very opportunistic and will say anything to add people to their cause.
Julie Birchall doesn't mince her words: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-divide-wasnt-young-old-ponces-non-ponces/
Their positions are fundamentally different though. Juncker has made it fairly clear he has little or no interest in doing a special deal with the UK. On top of that he was also only talking to UKIP's MEPs. Le Pen is in the EU and wants to leave so I can understand her acting that way just as I could understand Farage doing it when he was in the same position. The difference is that Farage has now won his argument and is standing there saying to these people that we need to do a deal with them before immediately insulting them. That is incredibly stupid.
But Juncker should just have said. Mr Farage you have no power in this. You have no say in the negotiation. You have won your war but you are not and will not be part of this process.
Calling people names just stops people reading and immediately loses you the argument. Not very professional in my opinion. If she wants to make a point she needs to engage her brain and put across a persuasive argument. .
Nag, that's not really it imo. Both campaigns were equally poor. Fear and anger is what swung this. There are a lot of pissed off people working long hours for low pay, a lot of people who feel like no one is listening to them, a lot of people who feel they have no stake in society. A Then why did you let them seduce you?
Burchill used to be good, bordering on brilliant, and always worth a read even when being wilfully provocative. Now she's a sad angry drunk who ought to go to rehab.
I didn't. I am anti UKIP in a sea of purple that is ever growing. They did not seduce me. I can see things for myself. A political body that talks of globalisation yet is a mere protectionist racket. Trying to make non EU products more expensive than EU products. Trying to protect their trading block by stopping globalisation from working. Trade outside of Europe is growing and dwarfing that from within and it could not continue with an organisation that says it is the against the very thing that is is doing. Like the SNP the EU paints itself as anti the exact thing that they do. I do not understand why people from across Europe cannot see that these bodies and partys are not anti these things. Watch their actions. View their policies and not the headlines they give out. And the answer from this "pro globalisation" organisation? Britain - We will impose tariffs on your things to protect our market. That is not globalisation, it is anti-globalisation. A Wolf in sheep's clothing.
They can, and they should. How long are you going to make excuses for people who support Farage? He's a tosspot. If you vote for dudes like that, it's on you. You're racist. Bottom line. There are two groups of people. One group (in the most cynical view) is quite happy to work awful jobs that cut down labor costs and result in massive profits for the elite. And are quite exploitable and happy to vote for the status quo if you throw them the tiniest of bones every once in a while. Another group thinks they are above those same jobs. So they don't work, and they are therefore taking money from the government while contributing nothing. And they're not even happy about it. They want to spit in the face of the UK government and the EU even though they are taking the most money from those two entities. Moreover, they are throwing their support behind completely unreliable asshats like Boris and Farage who for sure are going to crash and burn spectacularly, it's just a matter of how many they take down with them. If you have to choose between these two groups, who do you pick? Pretty easy choice. The only problem is that the former group has no votes and the latter group does. But if the latter group is going to throw away their votes on Farage there's no point negotiating with them anyway. You're right-- guys like Farage will lie and tell people anything they want to hear. If the people are stupid enough to believe it, there's nothing you can do. Even taking off the cynical politician hat, it's easier to side with the poor, hard-working, immigrant who is being exploited over the racist. Some people tried to tell it like it was, and were called "fearmongers" and blasted for being snobby intellectuals or whatever. So at some point, you can no longer negotiate. If you want to be responsible and above the likes of Farage it means you have to give people bad news and tell them "no" when their demands are unrealistic, stupid, or downright evil. If the working class types you keep talking about are genuinely not stupid and/or racist, then at some point they have to understand that voting for stupid and racist people isn't properly representing their views to the government. If you don't want to be ignored, then make reasonable demands and show that you know how to play the game.
GBP and FTSE are up quite a bit today. Most likely a bit of a dead cat bounce that will reverse itself. Still, it may have started to form a (currently still soft) floor. We'll see if it gets tested again. But if the pound can stay above 1.30 to USD and FTSE250 over 15,000 then things will have worked out okay. I'd say the odds right now are 50/50. The problem is, if they can't hold that line then who knows where the next level of support might be? If it's 1.25 and 14750, that's not great, but not too bad. If it's 1.00 and 12000 then we're all in some deep doodoo.
When will Scots realise the SNP are not what they seem? 10 years? 20 years? UKIP will garner votes because they have an acceptable face that thrives on being called names and that is why it is foolish to continue calling them names. debate their policies not the people. Make people see that they are not what they purport to be. Otherwise by ignoring them and calling them names you end up with them in power and only after a while can they be seen for what they are. Calling them names makes them stronger. When will the establishment realise this and start to scrutinise their policies and not just try to much rake individuals?
'For too long the political class have understood that we have a social problem, but considered it a second-order issue. The riots have provided a moment of clarity for all of us, a reminder that a strong economy requires a strong social settlement, with stable families ready to play a productive role in their own communities. The challenge of our generation is to reforge our commitment to reform society so that we can restore aspiration and hope to communities that have been left behind.' (Times, 15th September, 2011) - Iain Duncan Smith talking in the wake of the 2011 riots Well, that worked...
As the search for a new PMM continues, I think the best that could happen is for the Tories to invite William Hague back from his self imposed retirement. He is still quite young in political terms. He is about the only one in that party who has the intellect, instinct, respect and experience to cope with the demands and difficult situation the country is facing. We know he was not a great opposition leader, but then he was facing what was perceived at the time to be a very charismatic PM. I am sure he is now a wiser man, more knowledgeable in worldly affairs, that it would be a mistake to totally overlook him. PS: I am not a Tory, just advocating the most sensible outcome IMO.
Nearly 5,000 people have joined the Liberal Democrats since the Brexit vote, party officials said yesterday, as Tim Farron sought to rebuild his party’s support base by pledging to fight the next election on a promise to restore the UK’s membership of the EU. Here you go. The most opportunistic party of them all. Scrapping tuition fees last time to get votes wasn't it. You can all vote us back in at the next GE now.
William Hague left for $$$. He makes a mint after dinner speaking and writing. He only hung on pre the last election to support Cameron. I would say Boris will be a cert for one of the 2. Liam Fox and Andrea Leadsom are front runners for the other slot. That is if you discount Germy Hunt as I am. If it is Andrea vs Boris I will vote Andrea
