They are indeed lapping it up. Although i get the feeling the soldier thing could have been very ill-advised. That will not win him any new voters which he still needs according to polls. It's funny that in a country that seems to pride itself of self-promotion that virtually all the political stuff seems to be "look how **** he/she is and look what moronic decisions they've made" and virtually no "this is what i'd do....". Yesterday in the space of 4 adverts i witnessed an ad that said "Candidate A has deceived you, candidate A voted for X, for Y, for Z. Vote candidate B" and then about a minute later "Candidate B spreads lies about candidate A, don't trust candidate B. Vote candidate A". Not a single-piece of policy. That was for governor, or some equally pointless position. Trump has given a lot of ammunition to the democrats and with any hope it will hit home once the big tv campaigns really get going
Here's the point: plenty of people had been duped long before Boris Johnson got on his bus, as we'd had decades of misinformation from the likes of The Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph to cloud people's judgment: all these false stories of the EU banning bananas for being too curved, or cucumbers for not being straight enough, or how fish & chip shops would have to use the Latin name for all the fish on the menu, or double decker buses being banned as disabled people cannot use the upper deck, or darts being banned in pubs on Health & Safety grounds, or how all EU citizens would have to carry mandatory ID cards, or regulating the size of pizza slices, or playgrounds all being closed on for being "unsafe" - there's hundreds of stories like this, often resurfacing every few years (for example the Telegraph ran the double decker story in 1995 and 1998), and it's the constant drip...drip...drip of misinformation that duped enough people long before Cameron was even Tory leader, let alone when he made a gamble he didn't even need to make in the first place - which he lost. The same thing's happening with Corbyn at the moment, with the constant drip...drip...drip of how he was "unelectable" before he was even voted in as Labour leader, followed by all this crap like he didn't look solemn "enough" at Remembrance Sunday, or how he didn't do "enough" to keep Britain in the EU (even though an estimated 68% of Labour supporters voted Remain, as opposed to a mere 42% of Tory supporters), and now it's how he isn't doing "enough" to prevent the alleged bullying in the party despite him clearly stating several times he will not tolerate it as there is no place for it in the Labour party.
Modern politics is no longer about becoming the best candidate, but about appearing to be the least worst. It's gone from Vote For Me Because Of A, B and C to Vote For Me Because I'm Not The Other Guy. People don't want to vote for either of the main choices, both in the UK and US, but really, really don't want one side to get in.
That's where this year's Presidential election has failed: it's impossible to decide who is least-worst (aside from maybe that Third Party guy, but since it's so ingrained into voters that voting for a Third Party candidate is wasting their vote, he's a non-factor)
Maybe Hilary should just keep quiet and just allow that loudmouth braggart to keep shooting his own toes off?...
You have a few options available, though they've basically got no bloody chance. The Libertarian Party are lead by Gary Johnson. Socially liberal, fiscally insane. The Green Party are running in about half the states and are lead by Jill Stein. Similar to ours, with some nice stuff and some nutty. There are some other, smaller parties and they're largely split between racists, communists, protest votes and religious weirdos.
I think there is great hunger for political change here, well, amongst educated people anyway. I don't fully understand their system tbh, it seems similar to ours but they seem to enjoy hamstringing the powers of their president on a regular basis. At least we only do that sometimes.
Like certain documents that Americans pick and choose to formulate their arguments with, the American political system was perfectly normal in the mid-to-late 18th century. However, pointing out that it is not the mid-to-late 18th century and that maybe, just maybe, modernising the system so it isn't a perpetual clusterfuck of filibustering and strangling long-overdue legislation at birth because of something that was written a couple of hundred years ago is un-American and should be shouted down from all sides.
"There are good arguments the other way too, but the view that half the population was duped is frankly starting to piss me off." I've spoken to 3 people who voted Brexit. When they explained why they all started, for some strange reason, talking about immigration. It was very odd. I clearly asked them about membership of the EU. Also, apparently, my sister-in-law will be able to get an appointment at the doctor's sooner now. So that's nice. Umm... There were good arguments for Brexit, true (I think it's weird how so many people who claim to hate capitalism seemed so keen on the EU). But I do honestly think that the amount of ignorance and misunderstanding that was swimming round people's heads when most of them voted "leave" was huge. Of course democracy is based around asking the opinion of an electorate who are largely incapable of making an informed decision about anything political or economical but in this case the difference between what people thought they were doing and what they were actually doing seems huge.
Totally agree with Lenny. There are some good arguments for leaving the EU, but the Leave campaign didn't actually use them. I still can't see a solution that anyone's happy with, to be honest.
The EU is deeply flawed, without doubt. Personally, I doubt that it can survive within the current structure. However, now was about the very worst time to walk away. The U.K. Economy had just about dragged itself out of the worst recession since WW2, and now there's every chance it will sink back into it. Consumer, investor, and business confidence are all way down - these are not good portents for the future. As has been alluded to, far too many numbskulls listened to Farage's bollocks about 'getting their country back' Some believed that immigration would stop and that 'foreigners' who've 'stolen their jobs' - incidentally, these are in many cases jobs that these people wouldn't lower themselves to do themselves - would be sent packing. Some even believed the farcical £350mill pw for the health service! In short, they were convinced to exchange a fair amount of certainty for, well, no plan at all. Just a vague promise of 'Jam tomorrow' - whenever tomorrow may be. Meanwhile the UK economy will sink slowly below the horizon until they somehow sort this clusterfuck out!
Xenophobia played too big a part in the vote I fear The fact is that even if you don't like many of the members of your local golf club, you still realise that you need to be a member yourself if you want to play there and take advantage of whatever social benefits come your way through membership. Being an outsider isn't a viable option.
Yes, exactly. We will probably end up with a similar deal to Norway or Switzerland. The U.K. will probably be given it's moratorium on immigration and in return they will get unfettered access to EU trade. That part should quieten the UKIP mob down for a while. But, We would still have to contribute to the EU budget too. Of more concern is that we would no longer have a seat at the table. No longer be party to major decisions about EU policies, or as I believe, eventually its future direction. We'd be outside in the cold peering in.
I disagree. I think a moratorium, say 2 yrs or something, is a very possible solution as part of any agreement. I'd agree that a permanent block on freedom of movement is almost certainly not on the cards.
Does the EU have a freedom of movement agreement with the USA and China ?? If not, then the EU : 1. does not engage in free trade with them 2. is happy to do #1 when it suits That aside, whatever the EU think, the electorate of the UK have made it very clear that movement of people was a key factor in their decision to vote Leave. People with brain cells would heed the implications of that. Unaccountable politniks paid for by the taxes of the people OTOH ...
Unfortunately, some of the harder right Brexiters don't seem familiar with the word compromise! A very often used political tool. If the UK wants unfettered access to the EU markets and the all important passporting for our banking system, then there will undoubtedly be some form of compromise, as I've suggested above. The EU are simply not going to grant us completely free trade and also a total block on freedom of movement.
It's 1. The EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with either the USA or China. The politicians can't give people what they want in this instance though, as it's impossible. If the vote was to restrict free movement but change nothing else, then I think it would've passed with a greater majority. The EU won't accept those terms though, so it was extremely disingenuous of the Leave campaign to suggest that they basically would.
Yep, that was probably the only half-decent argument i heard from anyone for pro-Brexit. I was told (so could be wrong as 3rd+ hand info) that the trade deal with the US was piss-poor because all 28 nations of the EU had to agree on it, making it tough to negotiate. So the pro of Brexit would be that Britain could negotiate it's own, better trade deal with the 2 biggest economies.
