The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Head not fried & nor did I say it was a success for Merkel, my excitable friend, I'm simply more relaxed about it than you are. She's nothing if not a canny operator, people overlook that, four terms as head of the strongest nation in continental Europe is a pretty big indicator of a steady hand,. There will be a coalition, quite possibly the Jamaica deal. Besides, we're witnessing a backlash from the migration issue, largely emanating from the East from what I've seen & that will subside at the ballot box,all things being equal. But yes, absolutely not a good night for Mutti.
See, I can do Brexiteer style optimism too!
See, I can do Brexiteer style optimism too!
Eddie Strohacker said:
Now can we get back to hostilities please?
will that do?
Edited by alfie2244 on Sunday 24th September 22:20
vonuber said:
Murph7355 said:
It seems to me that you have no idea what people refer to when talking about the metro elite from the above.
It's not about political leaning.
So what is it then?It's not about political leaning.
They are the opposite side of the coin to populists.
Both have become snidey, over-used pejoratives IMO and do nothing to further sensible debate. But that went out of the window a very long time ago.
Murph7355 said:
They are the out of touch ruling classes. Irrespective of rosette colour (though where this group are concerned, the differences between rosettes are not really that marked). They fervently believe they know best, no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary.
They are the opposite side of the coin to populists.
and they define their policies, or policies which benefit them, as being "centrist".They are the opposite side of the coin to populists.
JagLover said:
Murph7355 said:
They are the out of touch ruling classes. Irrespective of rosette colour (though where this group are concerned, the differences between rosettes are not really that marked). They fervently believe they know best, no matter what evidence there may be to the contrary.
They are the opposite side of the coin to populists.
and they define their policies, or policies which benefit them, as being "centrist".They are the opposite side of the coin to populists.
Ruling classes? Is there more than one ruling class? Someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg might consider himself to be a member of a ruling class, but I doubt that many would describe him as a centrist. Johnson appears to believe that he has some sort of governmental birthright, but again is hardly of the centre (Although to be fair Johnson is not overly burdened by principles of any complexion, save for the principle that he should have fame and power but not have to do any work or take any responsibility for anything. Does that remind you of anyone else possessed of a wandering todger and a dodgy barnet? ).
If one group only wants policies to favour itself, is there some and fearless group of selfless public interest types who think only of the common good? If so, who are they? Do they have a leader? (Oh, Farage, obvs. Rookie error!).
andymadmak said:
Breadvan72 said:
Many fell for the bus claptrap (despite the claims by one or two here that they never even heard of the bus blah).
Genuine question, but how do you know that "many fell for the bus claptrap"? Is there a survey somewhere that supports this view?I know of no way to measure the impact of each individual campaign slogan or assertion, but history tells us that electorates are often gullible to false claims. The EU is a subject hedged around with myths. For example, not that many pages ago here someone glibly trotted out the false statement that the EU does not (indeed dare not) publish accounts. That poster probably believed that false statement to be true when he posted it. He had probably picked it up as it circulated on the web along with many other Euro-myths.
Leading propagandists know that repeating a false claim over and again can be effective. Farage is a master of this. It does not matter how often his false figures about EU costs and his false claims about how much UK law is EU law are debunked. He simply ignores the debunking and repeats his falsehoods. Farage is a shrewd and effective politician, a man of the deepest cynicism, and knows that his calculated dishonesty pays off. Note that Johnson, another liar (but a less skilled one than Farage) has recently resurrected the bogus 350 million claim -presumably calculating that it will play well with his target audience.
So, did the bus slogan work? This cannot be measured, but it was a punchy slogan, offering what seemed to be a clear and simple benefit of voting leave. Much as we might wish voters to be sophisticated people who carefully weigh claims and counterclaims, you only have to read comments under Mail articles, and many NPE threads. to realise that not all voters are such paragons of careful and informed judgement.
Leading propagandists know that repeating a false claim over and again can be effective. Farage is a master of this. It does not matter how often his false figures about EU costs and his false claims about how much UK law is EU law are debunked. He simply ignores the debunking and repeats his falsehoods. Farage is a shrewd and effective politician, a man of the deepest cynicism, and knows that his calculated dishonesty pays off. Note that Johnson, another liar (but a less skilled one than Farage) has recently resurrected the bogus 350 million claim -presumably calculating that it will play well with his target audience.
So, did the bus slogan work? This cannot be measured, but it was a punchy slogan, offering what seemed to be a clear and simple benefit of voting leave. Much as we might wish voters to be sophisticated people who carefully weigh claims and counterclaims, you only have to read comments under Mail articles, and many NPE threads. to realise that not all voters are such paragons of careful and informed judgement.
pgh said:
It boggles the mind that one bus is being cited as having changed the course of direction of a nation.
Constantly coming back to that bus suggests to me a complete inability to understand that there may have been wider and more numerous concerns about the EU. It's a banal attempt to trivialise the convictions of 52% of voters.
Perhaps if all of the minds behind the remain campaign had been able to put forward a positive case, showing all of the good things that the EU makes possible today and has previously achieved, then the result may have been different.
I found the almost total absence of a positive argument very telling.
One might equally argue the absence of will in searching for a positive argument is equally telling, as may be offering the electorate what amounts to a big red button with fConstantly coming back to that bus suggests to me a complete inability to understand that there may have been wider and more numerous concerns about the EU. It's a banal attempt to trivialise the convictions of 52% of voters.
Perhaps if all of the minds behind the remain campaign had been able to put forward a positive case, showing all of the good things that the EU makes possible today and has previously achieved, then the result may have been different.
I found the almost total absence of a positive argument very telling.
k you, establishment written on it.In passing and entirely in keeping with the SOP of this place, I doubt with all sincerity many on the rational, clearly correct remain side of the now permanently fractured country (Go Dave!) seriously attribute Leave's three point something out of ten people's stunning victory to a glib slogan on a rented coach but there is some pleasure to be derived from bringing it up over & over again as one of the more outré offerings from campaigns littered with, well politicking really.
It's up there with Hannan? Never heard of him, guv.
Breadvan72 said:
PS: The fact that some here and elsewhere saw through the fib does not alter the fact that many may not have seen through it. Big scale political lying has a long history, and I doubt that it would be such a persistent feature of politics if it was not an effective tactic.
So which one did you fall for?30bn+ emergency budget?
Interest rate rise leading to more expensive mortgage payments?
Half a million jobs lost?
Immediate recession?
Outbreak of WW3 in Europe?
pgh said:
Sorry Eddie, I found this a little difficult to follow. I did try. You are disappointed that the leave campaign and the wider public didn't try harder to understand all the positive things about the EU? Even though remain campaign themselves struggled to find any positives to talk about?
Skipping over the "rational, clearly correct remain" part (I didn't realise I had become irrational on entering the polling station). Are you suggesting that we should allow you to keep raising the bus as it brings you a little pleasure at an otherwise dark time?
It's been pointed out elsewhere that people are more gullible than they would obviously care to admit - not you & I though, oh no Siree & advertising is known to be effective, as it's continued existence kind of shows that beyond doubt.Skipping over the "rational, clearly correct remain" part (I didn't realise I had become irrational on entering the polling station). Are you suggesting that we should allow you to keep raising the bus as it brings you a little pleasure at an otherwise dark time?
On the positives, one doesn't have to look very far through these pages to discover what might generously be termed swivel eyed irrationality at the slightest mention of the be-horned EU, usually accompanied hand in hand with a glossing over of facts to the extent that the man on the Clapham omnibus discovering the EU soley from this forum would reasonably be inclined to sell up & move to the furthest point from Brussels he might be able to find. Nevertheless, it's kind of you to permit me to bring up the bus again, jolly decent in fact.
Breadvan72 said:
I know of no way to measure the impact of each individual campaign slogan or assertion, but history tells us that electorates are often gullible to false claims. The EU is a subject hedged around with myths. For example, not that many pages ago here someone glibly trotted out the false statement that the EU does not (indeed dare not) publish accounts. That poster probably believed that false statement to be true when he posted it. He had probably picked it up as it circulated on the web along with many other Euro-myths.
Leading propagandists know that repeating a false claim over and again can be effective. Farage is a master of this. It does not matter how often his false figures about EU costs and his false claims about how much UK law is EU law are debunked. He simply ignores the debunking and repeats his falsehoods. Farage is a shrewd and effective politician, a man of the deepest cynicism, and knows that his calculated dishonesty pays off. Note that Johnson, another liar (but a less skilled one than Farage) has recently resurrected the bogus 350 million claim -presumably calculating that it will play well with his target audience.
So, did the bus slogan work? This cannot be measured, but it was a punchy slogan, offering what seemed to be a clear and simple benefit of voting leave. Much as we might wish voters to be sophisticated people who carefully weigh claims and counterclaims, you only have to read comments under Mail articles, and many NPE threads. to realise that not all voters are such paragons of careful and informed judgement.
"I don't know" would have been a shorter and just as accurate answer. Leading propagandists know that repeating a false claim over and again can be effective. Farage is a master of this. It does not matter how often his false figures about EU costs and his false claims about how much UK law is EU law are debunked. He simply ignores the debunking and repeats his falsehoods. Farage is a shrewd and effective politician, a man of the deepest cynicism, and knows that his calculated dishonesty pays off. Note that Johnson, another liar (but a less skilled one than Farage) has recently resurrected the bogus 350 million claim -presumably calculating that it will play well with his target audience.
So, did the bus slogan work? This cannot be measured, but it was a punchy slogan, offering what seemed to be a clear and simple benefit of voting leave. Much as we might wish voters to be sophisticated people who carefully weigh claims and counterclaims, you only have to read comments under Mail articles, and many NPE threads. to realise that not all voters are such paragons of careful and informed judgement.
Look, lets all take a step back for a second and accept that regardless of what was or what was not on the side of this mythical bus, what is generally agreed is that some in the Brexit camp were claiming that by not contributing to the EU budget the UK would have more to spend on the NHS.
For this to influence to any significant degree one would surely have to make the following assumptions:
1. That a significant % of Brexit voters were aware of this suggestion
2. That a significant % of that significant % believed this was an option
3. That a significant % of that significant % of that significant % wanted the money (or a significant % of it) to be spent on the NHS
4. That for a significant % of that significant % of that significant % this one issue would represent either a compelling reason in its own right to vote Brexit, or would represent a compelling reason when taken with other reasons that when aggregated together would lead someone to vote Brexit.
There are some rather big assumptions there! It also fails to recognise the sizeable bits of state sponsored propaganda that the Remain side issued. Why does one side have powerful propaganda (apparently) and the other side does not? In the battle for opinion why does Remain bleat about the likes of Farage and the influence of the Daily Mail, but is blind to the lies of those key figures in Remain campaign or of the far greater influence exercised by the BBC?
It is interesting that even now, 15 months after the vote, some of those on the Remain side have yet to ask themselves the question why Remain lost the vote of the people. Dancing around % of turnout and such like, bleating about Farage etc does not explain why the country voted out.
I asked earlier (or maybe it was in another thread? It gets confusing!) what Remainers thought the vote split would have been if Juncker had made his "Future of Europe" speech before the referendum instead of just a week or so ago. I got no response.
From my viewpoint, I honestly think that if Juncker had made that speech in the week before the Referendum then the vote to leave would have been 65:35 or possibly even higher. Now I know that I cannot prove that, and I am just expressing an opinion, but the clue for Remainers as to why Britain voted to leave lies, at least in part, in the content of that speech and the future it evokes - a future which those on the mainland of Europe have always been far more open and honest about than most of our own rather shabby pro EU politicians. You could say that Junckers vision would never have happened if the UK had voted to stay, but I think that that position would be either naive or disingenuous.
Edited by andymadmak on Monday 25th September 10:15
In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.
The rage you hoped for isn't there because people recognised it was a cross party group who could only suggest it, not everyone ( me included ) wants huge sums of cash chucked at the NHS , and even those that did buy into still don't care because the NHS wasn't the issue , it was the control of that money and the idea of sending it to the EU that overrode everything else.
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.
The rage you hoped for isn't there because people recognised it was a cross party group who could only suggest it, not everyone ( me included ) wants huge sums of cash chucked at the NHS , and even those that did buy into still don't care because the NHS wasn't the issue , it was the control of that money and the idea of sending it to the EU that overrode everything else.
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.
Deptford Draylons said:
In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.
The rage you hoped for isn't there because people recognised it was a cross party group who could only suggest it, not everyone ( me included ) wants huge sums of cash chucked at the NHS , and even those that did buy into still don't care because the NHS wasn't the issue , it was the control of that money and the idea of sending it to the EU that overrode everything else.
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.
How are you explaining away the letter Boris wrote last week?The rage you hoped for isn't there because people recognised it was a cross party group who could only suggest it, not everyone ( me included ) wants huge sums of cash chucked at the NHS , and even those that did buy into still don't care because the NHS wasn't the issue , it was the control of that money and the idea of sending it to the EU that overrode everything else.
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.
"Dear Sir David
I must say that I was surprised and disappointed by your letter of today, since it was based on what appeared to be a wilful distortion of the text of my article.
When we spoke you conceded that you were more concerned by the headline and the BBC coverage, though you accepted that I was not responsible for those. I suggest if the BBC coverage offends you that you write to the BBC.
You say that I claim that there would be £350 million that "might be available for extra public spending" when we leave the EU.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and I would like you to withdraw it. I in fact said: "Once we have settled our accounts we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS. "
Deptford Draylons said:
In short, the only people talking about the big red bus a year on are solely remainers in the desperate hope of using it as an excuse to overturn the result in some way.
Course it is.
Deptford Draylons said:
I'm not sure why the past few days have been a repeat of the morning after the referendum with big red bus anger and ' but Dan Hanna said ' , but it is repetitive.
TBF if there's one world class authority on tedious repetition around here, it's definitely you.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff