The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
cookie118 said:
Potentially. Saying what probably everyone already knows but the consensus seems to be that a high turnout suits Remain, but it has to get young voters out who are traditionally the worst at turning out.
After all the to-and-fro it could be that simple turnout is what decides it!
Which is why both sides, to get attention, are trying to turn the debate onto any subject other than Europe.After all the to-and-fro it could be that simple turnout is what decides it!
The truth is that for decades every bit of research has shown people really, really, do not care about Europe. At best it usually makes it to 8th or 9th on the list of important issues to people. No one will be motivated to listen or then vote if the debate is just about various technicalities about the EU. They will be bored rigid.
The things which seem to matter to people on this thread do not resonate with the population as a whole and are atypical.
So, the Leave side will try to turn it onto immigration and other issues which people care about more and the remain have done everything they can to turn it onto the economy.
If they just talk about EU things no one will vote at all!
EddieSteadyGo said:
Ha ha. Very funny 
But you see my point? To make the leave campaign work, there has to be an alternative story with an economic case which can capture the centre ground. And to my post above, there is no "x" percent growth or "y" pounds case which the Leave campaign are prepared to advocate.
They (the Leave campaigners) could have made it, but they chose not to. Yes, it exposes them to potential criticism but it would be essential to winning over a majority IMHO.
absolutely agree, they not only could have made it, they should have. handwaving away the more ridiculous negative claims is fine but anyone with half a brain cell understands the economy is of great importance (even i have to accept that to some it is the most important topic in this debate). the worrying thing for me is the approach you suggest should have been second nature, the fact it is not has me now questioning the motives of certain members of the leave campaign. i can almost hear the tinfoil rustling as i type this though But you see my point? To make the leave campaign work, there has to be an alternative story with an economic case which can capture the centre ground. And to my post above, there is no "x" percent growth or "y" pounds case which the Leave campaign are prepared to advocate.
They (the Leave campaigners) could have made it, but they chose not to. Yes, it exposes them to potential criticism but it would be essential to winning over a majority IMHO.
. i would hope that even his most ardent supporters now understand why boris never had a chance of becoming pm, referendum or not.Sam All said:
bit o/t but i think portillo is a good example of what being involved in the cesspit of uk politics can do to a person. i used to despise him, these days would quite happily buy him a pint.confused_buyer said:
Which is why both sides, to get attention, are trying to turn the debate onto any subject other than Europe.
The truth is that for decades every bit of research has shown people really, really, do not care about Europe. At best it usually makes it to 8th or 9th on the list of important issues to people. No one will be motivated to listen or then vote if the debate is just about various technicalities about the EU. They will be bored rigid.
The things which seem to matter to people on this thread do not resonate with the population as a whole and are atypical.
So, the Leave side will try to turn it onto immigration and other issues which people care about more and the remain have done everything they can to turn it onto the economy.
If they just talk about EU things no one will vote at all!
I couldn't disagree with you more. 'EU things' are those things that people care about. Typically the economy, healthcare and immigration are the top 3. Europe itself and the tThe truth is that for decades every bit of research has shown people really, really, do not care about Europe. At best it usually makes it to 8th or 9th on the list of important issues to people. No one will be motivated to listen or then vote if the debate is just about various technicalities about the EU. They will be bored rigid.
The things which seem to matter to people on this thread do not resonate with the population as a whole and are atypical.
So, the Leave side will try to turn it onto immigration and other issues which people care about more and the remain have done everything they can to turn it onto the economy.
If they just talk about EU things no one will vote at all!
ts in Brussels, or course no one cares about. If you haven't figured out the the EU has a massive impact on all 3 then you are not paying attention. Do you care about your job in a company which created it in the UK because it is part of the EU? Do you care about swimming on a beach that isn't covered in human excrement? And to show I am not biased, Do you mind not being able to get a Doctors appointment because the waiting room is packed full of immigrants? Are you happy to face power cuts because the EU is forcing us to close down coal burning power stations?
These are things everyone cares passionately about. At the very least they 'have an EU dimension' as I heard one advisor to the PM say, right through to being completely controlled by our EU membership.
wc98 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Ha ha. Very funny
But you see my point? To make the leave campaign work, there has to be an alternative story with an economic case which can capture the centre ground. And to my post above, there is no "x" percent growth or "y" pounds case which the Leave campaign are prepared to advocate.
They (the Leave campaigners) could have made it, but they chose not to. Yes, it exposes them to potential criticism but it would be essential to winning over a majority IMHO.
absolutely agree, they not only could have made it, they should have. handwaving away the more ridiculous negative claims is fine but anyone with half a brain cell understands the economy is of great importance (even i have to accept that to some it is the most important topic in this debate). the worrying thing for me is the approach you suggest should have been second nature, the fact it is not has me now questioning the motives of certain members of the leave campaign. i can almost hear the tinfoil rustling as i type this though But you see my point? To make the leave campaign work, there has to be an alternative story with an economic case which can capture the centre ground. And to my post above, there is no "x" percent growth or "y" pounds case which the Leave campaign are prepared to advocate.
They (the Leave campaigners) could have made it, but they chose not to. Yes, it exposes them to potential criticism but it would be essential to winning over a majority IMHO.
. i would hope that even his most ardent supporters now understand why boris never had a chance of becoming pm, referendum or not.Now I know this is rebutted by the Leaver's saying there is as much divergence on the Remain side and similar lack of clarity on the future by remaining in the EU. Whilst there is some truth in that, because remaining is the status quo, the bar is set at a different height in most people's minds.
Fundamentally, to win the referendum, the Leave group don't need to appeal to UKIP voters or the hard right (or indeed the hard left). They might grumble but they are voting Out regardless.
To win they need the centre ground vote which requires a positive economic message at its core. My suggestion would be a plan mostly based on Flexcit, and endorsed by a wide ranging group of Nobel Laureate economists.
They need to stop calling themselves Brexiter's or using words like Flexcit as these technical names sound odd to most normal people.
They needed to constantly explain over a long period of time the economic case, probably over 12 months, and use the additional points about democracy, sovereignty, and immigration as the icing on the cake.
But then again, what do I know? Lets see how their campaign plays out.
wc98 said:
Sam All said:
bit o/t but i think portillo is a good example of what being involved in the cesspit of uk politics can do to a person. i used to despise him, these days would quite happily buy him a pint.So why say it then?
Goes back to the suggestion several pages back that you could almost think Cameron doesn't want to win because the arguments are so ridiculously outlandish.
EddieSteadyGo said:
...there is no convergence within the leadership of the Leave camp on the best Brexit campaign strategy. And in fact, worse that that, some of the personalties at the top of the Leave campaign despise each other so much they fight like rats in a sack - this gets in the way of them reaching reasonable compromise.
Now I know this is rebutted by the Leaver's saying there is as much divergence on the Remain side and similar lack of clarity on the future by remaining in the EU.
Agreed in that there has been no convergence from Leave, but that's not to say there isn't a fairly clear route, there is, which FiF and others have linked to and pointed out. Then there's the negotiation around that, the outcome of which nobody can predict.Now I know this is rebutted by the Leaver's saying there is as much divergence on the Remain side and similar lack of clarity on the future by remaining in the EU.
EddieSteadyGo said:
...because remaining is the status quo, the bar is set at a different height in most people's minds...
Seriously? In which case, in most small minds. A vote for Remain is not a vote for the status quo as pointed out and explained N times in this thread. As with the hint above that the lack of convergence implies a lack of direction, this wilful loss of memory happens too often. Incidentally if the vote is Remain will you consider a change of PH username to EddieSteadyStay
turbobloke said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
...because remaining is the status quo, the bar is set at a different height in most people's minds...
Seriously? In which case, in most small minds. A vote for Remain is not a vote for the status quo as pointed out and explained N times in this thread. As with the hint above that the lack of convergence implies a lack of direction, this wilful loss of memory happens too often. Incidentally if the vote is Remain will you consider a change of PH username to EddieSteadyStay
I don't think it is massively important point, but if the Leave campaign acknowledged this they could have adopted a campaign strategy which takes it into account.
p.s. nice quip on the username
richie99 said:
I couldn't disagree with you more. 'EU things' are those things that people care about. Typically the economy, healthcare and immigration are the top 3. Europe itself and the tts in Brussels, or course no one cares about. If you haven't figured out the the EU has a massive impact on all 3 then you are not paying attention.
That may be true, although I'm not convinced the EU has as much impact on any of those as some, but virtually no one links those to Europe. Maybe they should, but they don't. This is why both campaigns are trying desperately to do so to engage voters on either side.ts in Brussels, or course no one cares about. If you haven't figured out the the EU has a massive impact on all 3 then you are not paying attention. Esseesse said:
"He's unhappy about what he is saying (Cameron)"
So why say it then?
Goes back to the suggestion several pages back that you could almost think Cameron doesn't want to win because the arguments are so ridiculously outlandish.
I've never met Cameron but I know plenty of people who have and they all say the same thing about Cameron and Europe. He is, in fact, very Eurossceptic and thinks most of it is a steaming pile of turd. So why say it then?
Goes back to the suggestion several pages back that you could almost think Cameron doesn't want to win because the arguments are so ridiculously outlandish.
However, he has taken the overall pragmatic view that we're probably better off inside the tent doing the proverbial than the other way round.
Having taken that view he thinks he should do everything he can to win but it was 55/45 decision in favour of staying and sees advantages to leaving.
I have no idea whether that is actually true or not but does match what others like Portillo & Hilton are saying.
KrissKross said:
Probably why anyone below the age of 40 should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter, as they have only had experience of this disaster and somehow think its normal...
Perhaps nobody over 65 should be allowed to vote either, since they may not have too long to live with the consequences.Esseesse said:
Why do online polls put leave a little ahead and phone polls put remain significantly ahead?
I would expect the opposite result, as phoning would have more 'old' weighting. Also I notice on Facebook that leave posts have comments left by leavers as you would expect, however remain posts posted by genuine remain campaigns also have comments overwhelmingly from angry leavers. Why is this?
Interesting post looking at discrepancies in the polls. Might be tighter then it has appeared in recent days...I would expect the opposite result, as phoning would have more 'old' weighting. Also I notice on Facebook that leave posts have comments left by leavers as you would expect, however remain posts posted by genuine remain campaigns also have comments overwhelmingly from angry leavers. Why is this?
http://www.ntmarkets.com/2016/05/slog-brexit-now-r...
zygalski said:
KrissKross said:
Probably why anyone below the age of 40 should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter, as they have only had experience of this disaster and somehow think its normal...
Perhaps nobody over 65 should be allowed to vote either, since they may not have too long to live with the consequences.There are also a lot of wise old people who want the best for their (young) families. Many people feel that they have put a lot into this country and can see it going the wrong direction. I would put my faith in their judgement more than any student.
KrissKross said:
zygalski said:
KrissKross said:
Probably why anyone below the age of 40 should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter, as they have only had experience of this disaster and somehow think its normal...
Perhaps nobody over 65 should be allowed to vote either, since they may not have too long to live with the consequences.There are also a lot of wise old people who want the best for their (young) families. Many people feel that they have put a lot into this country and can see it going the wrong direction. I would put my faith in their judgement more than any student.
KrissKross said:
zygalski said:
KrissKross said:
Probably why anyone below the age of 40 should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter, as they have only had experience of this disaster and somehow think its normal...
Perhaps nobody over 65 should be allowed to vote either, since they may not have too long to live with the consequences.There are also a lot of wise old people who want the best for their (young) families. Many people feel that they have put a lot into this country and can see it going the wrong direction. I would put my faith in their judgement more than any student.
Same old from zygalski, in any case.
ONS said:
Life expectancy at age 65 is highest for men in Harrow, where they could expect to live for a further 20.9 years compared with only 14.9 years for men in Glasgow City.
The equivalent ages for women are 23.8 and 18.3 years.That range of ~15-24 years is plenty given that a respectable number will exceed the average.
KrissKross said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
decisions have in their mind some factor for 'better the devil you know'.
Probably why anyone below the age of 40 should not be allowed to vote on such an important matter, as they have only had experience of this disaster and somehow think its normal... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff