New Tory Leader

[littleyellowbirdie 2,591]

15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yes, of course there were some. Ricardo has his reasons and he issensible enough to have reasoned them for himself.

I am talking of the 750K who swung it towards Leave. And without stereotyping people too much, I can guarantee you that more than 750K, who never vote in any other election, voted because they believed we would be better off financially purely by not contributing to the budget each year and that swarms of EU citizens wouldn't be swamping the Labour Exchange and pinching our jobs. And I will also guarantee that more than 750K who voted are on benefits and had no intention of doing the jobs that these EU citizens were pinching. And that was why they voted that way. I can guarantee you I heard it from at least half of the members of my golf club. And one in particular, who now because he is receiving his state pension, can shout his mouth off because he isn't on benefits anymore.

No doubt some did, and if the argument was that nobody believed leave's economic arguments then that would be enough to disprove it, but that's not the assertion. The assertion is that it helped tip the balance for a leave win in the face of the much more compelling and comprehensive economic arguments from remain. No amount of anecdotes good enough to make that case.

Sorry, but this keeps getting asserted again and again like it's fact, but if it's fact then the data should be there to back it up. For the umpteenth time, where is it?

Edited September 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[duke63 545]

51 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I can agree with most of this which is why the 2030 to 2035 date doesn't matter.

More generally - There is an industrial phrase which is used occasionally for sales which is pertinent  -

'Technological Push or Market Pull'

Frankly EVs are still in both phases. The Technology 'push' phase i.e the technology is ahead of the market desire and being fostered upon us probably before it is mature and certainly not with the necessary infrastructure support it. 

The Market 'Pull' is now however taking over with demand for much cheaper vehicles and longer ranges comparable to ICE (else you end with two car families). 

Which is where it all becomes nonsensical. 
 

I bet one charge a week on an EV would be sufficient for the majority of drivers on their current mileage. But too many want a £50k SUV on PCP with an engine size and range they will never need. 
the tax regime should be used to encourage the purchase of new EVs at the expense of ICEs. 

[duke63 545]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No doubt some did, and if the argument was that nobody believed leave's economic arguments then that would be enough to disprove it, but that's not the assertion. The assertion is that it helped tip the balance for a leave win in the face of the much more compelling and comprehensive economic arguments from remain. No amount of anecdotes good enough to make that case.

Sorry, but this keeps getting asserted again and again like it's fact, but if it's fact then the data should be there to back it up. Where is it?

Regardless of the last Brexit vote, give it ten years when many Brexit voters have passed on and younger generations visit Europe and see they are so far ahead of us in so many aspects and their standard of living is much better, then younger generations will demand another vote to rejoin. 
 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No doubt some did, and if the argument was that nobody believed leave's economic arguments then that would be enough to disprove it, but that's not the assertion. The assertion is that it helped tip the balance for a leave win in the face of the much more compelling and comprehensive economic arguments from remain. No amount of anecdotes good enough to make that case.

Sorry, but this keeps getting asserted again and again like it's fact, but if it's fact then the data should be there to back it up. For the umpteenth time, where is it?

The data is irrelevant. Its what we know from first hand experience. I am not interested what somebody says before the enter the polling booth or when they leave it. I am interested wha tthey did in the polling booth.

And I am telling you that I know for a fact that the reason we left the EU was because of about 750K votes and I can tell you that more than that amount voted leave for financial and economic reasons. And they all believed the Leaave argument thaT £350M a week would be going to the NHS and not to the EU. How much more economic can you get that that.

What you read while sipping a Ricard by the Seine is not what the reality was. The academics never set foot in Redruth and Camborne to hear the reasons.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,591]

 

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The data is irrelevant. Its what we know from first hand experience. I am not interested what somebody says before the enter the polling booth or when they leave it. I am interested wha tthey did in the polling booth.

And I am telling you that I know for a fact that the reason we left the EU was because of about 750K votes and I can tell you that more than that amount voted leave for financial and economic reasons. And they all believed the Leaave argument thaT £350M a week would be going to the NHS and not to the EU. How much more economic can you get that that.

What you read while sipping a Ricard by the Seine is not what the reality was. The academics never set foot in Redruth and Camborne to hear the reasons.

That's not how it works. Polling has been done that has established many things about the referendum with data. The net gains of th economic arguments of both sides in isolation is not an area that falls into that.

Edited September 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

That's not how it works.

Of course it is. Analysts and data collectors don't win elections. Wha tthe ysay and publish has a big margin for error. Plade tha ton top of the 2016 election and 2-3% for remain would have won. One of the most famous general elections in the UK was after WWII. The exit polls had Churchill winning. Because they asked voters who they thought would win and not who they voted for.

Its what people did on the day. And what they believe was the reason for them voting that way. And the ones who swayed the election were the simple bottom feeding, greedy right now, I'm alright Jack I will be financially better off.

I voted Remain because I knew what I was getting by staying in the EU. But I didn't have a clue wha twould happen if we left. But I suspected but couldn't prove that we would suffer in the future by not remaining and not just financially but with freedom of movement, medical attention, travel.

Edited September 21, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[littleyellowbirdie 2,591]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course it is. Analysts and data collectors don't win elections. Wha tthe ysay and publish has a big margin for error. Plade tha ton top of the 2016 election and 2-3% for remain would have won. One of the most famous general elections in the UK was after WWII. The exit polls had Churchill winning. Because they asked voters who they thought would win and not who they voted for.

Its what people did on the day. And what they believe was the reason for them voting that way. And the ones who swayed the election were the simple bottom feeding, greedy right now, I'm alright Jack I will be financially better off.

I voted Remain because I knew what I was getting by staying in the EU. But I didn't have a clue wha twould happen if we left. But I suspected but couldn't prove that we would suffer in the future by not remaining and not just financially but with freedom of movement, medical attention, travel.

No it isn't. Analysts and data collectors do pick apart results and ask questions to ascertain what actually happened at a statistical level. Your anecdotes support the fact that some people in a heavily leave-leaning area may have bought into some simplistic economic arguments over much more complete counter-arguments. But more likely than not,  they simply wanted to believe those arguments because it suited their outlook on other questions rather than the arguments themselves having positively influence them towards voting leave. What you can definitely say is that there's no data that backs up your view based on anecdotal evidence that leave's economic claims helped win it for them.

Edited September 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

 

"They need us more than we need them" was another of the classic economic fallacies along with "sunny uplands" that were persuasive to the hard of thinking. 

The promise of a better performing economy and less foreigners won it for the brexits. You could throw sovereignty in there too just to make it look a bit more intellectual. 

Yes. The often stated Farage argument was that we sold them £600bn worth of goods every year but they sold us £660bn worth. Therefore they had more to lose. The fact that it was 12% of our GDP and 3% of theirs was completely lost on those of limited intellect. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,591]

15 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes. The often stated Farage argument was that we sold them £600bn worth of goods every year but they sold us £660bn worth. Therefore they had more to lose. The fact that it was 12% of our GDP and 3% of theirs was completely lost on those of limited intellect. 

Still misses the point that people only believed these economic claims because they wanted to believe it in the face of stronger evidence to the contrary; there's no evidence that economic arguments were a significantly motivating argument for leave voters.

Edited September 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

26 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

people only believed these economic claims because they wanted to believe it in the face of stronger evidence to the contrary

Sorry, you lost me there

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

What you read while sipping a Ricard by the Seine is not what the reality was. The academics never set foot in Redruth and Camborne to hear the reasons.

I don't doubt that the UK might look a lot better from France than from Cornwall or Yorkshire, especially if the observer is wearing Brexitty tinted specs 😀

[Yellow Fever 3,822]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Still misses the point that people only believed these economic claims because they wanted to believe it in the face of stronger evidence to the contrary; there's no evidence that economic arguments were a significantly motivating argument for leave voters.

There is a lot of evidence that that the average 'Leave voter' preferred to believe Johnson and 'Leave' rather than the 'experts' on economic matters.  They were telling them what they wanted to hear after all! £350M for the NHS.

Also the heavy correlation between poorer areas voting leave rather than richer areas. Something to do with blaming the EU for their woes which Brexit would fix. Still waiting.

Without looking too far - 

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Economics-of-Brexit-in-voters-eyes.pdf  

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

the unelected PM follows the rejected PM, and the one who danced whilst the Queen was mourning masked, is still the most popular bounder among the party political pirates.

Unelected, rejected, no people had a say, inertia and greed make up their populist feed.

[Barbe bleu 832]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Still misses the point that people only believed these economic claims because they wanted to believe it in the face of stronger evidence to the contrary; there's no evidence that economic arguments were a significantly motivating argument for leave voters.

This.

It's difficult to be sure but I strongly suspect that a high proportion voters on either side made decisions based on 'feelings' (be that patriotism, fear of the other, sense of imagined community with the continent etc). They then pretty much looked for an economic justification that would support this. 

The leave campaign was clever enough to spot this and ran a campaign centred on emotion with a fig leaf of economics (and some other tokens) to give voters the excuse they wanted.   Remain still keep on giving line charts of GDP and engaging in other boomerang politics.

 Its  also probably not completely coincidental that thr less this is talked about outside of regional football forums the less the 'leave' appeal gets.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,820]

In the simplistic of terms:

They lied their arses off. 

We bored their pants off. 

😁

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

38 minutes ago, Herman said:

In the simplistic of terms:

They lied their arses off. 

We bored their pants off. 

😁

If you haven't seen it, seek out 'Brexit, The Uncivil War'.

The simple truth is that Cambridge Analytica won the referendum by attracting people who had never voted before using social media. Obviously they lied through their teeth but it was a new sort of politics and Cameron and Remain didn't have an answer to it. 

It's a bit scary to find out what you can do with Facebook. Cambridge Analytica can tell with 90% certainty whether you vote and if so, how you vote. They even know if you're in a relationship that's going to end shortly, usually before you know it. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No it isn't. Analysts and data collectors do pick apart results and ask questions to ascertain what actually happened at a statistical level. Your anecdotes support the fact that some people in a heavily leave-leaning area may have bought into some simplistic economic arguments over much more complete counter-arguments. But more likely than not,  they simply wanted to believe those arguments because it suited their outlook on other questions rather than the arguments themselves having positively influence them towards voting leave. What you can definitely say is that there's no data that backs up your view based on anecdotal evidence that leave's economic claims helped win it for them.

You are assuming, but I am not. I am giving evidence. I giveup about data based on parameters that may not apply. Its a waste of time carrying on with this because you are being stubborn about data juet to suit your argument.

[Yellow Fever 3,822]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Still misses the point that people only believed these economic claims because they wanted to believe it in the face of stronger evidence to the contrary; there's no evidence that economic arguments were a significantly motivating argument for leave voters.

Just pulled this little paragraph out from the earlier Curtice report for you. Page 6. Data.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-Economics-of-Brexit-in-voters-eyes.pdf  

Of this, however, there is no sign. According to the BES, no less than 93% of those who thought before polling day that the economy would be worse if the UK left the EU eventually voted for Remain. Conversely, 90% of those who thought the economy would be better voted to Leave. No other evaluation included in the BES survey differentiates as strongly between Remain and Leave voters as this. Equally, although the NatCen panel found that perceptions of the implications of EU membership for Britain’s distinctive sense of identity were what distinguished between Remain and Leave supporters most of all, people’s views of the economic consequences came a close second. At the same time, YouGov’s last poll before polling day found that no less than 95% of those who thought that Britain would be economically worse off as a result of leaving intended to vote to Remain, while 94% of those who reckoned it would be economically better off were proposing to vote to Leave. In truth, people’s perceptions of the economic consequences of remaining in or leaving the EU could hardly have been any more important in influencing voters’ referendum choice. Understanding what shaped those perceptions is thus central to any effort at understanding and interpreting the referendum result.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,820]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If you haven't seen it, seek out 'Brexit, The Uncivil War'.

The simple truth is that Cambridge Analytica won the referendum by attracting people who had never voted before using social media. Obviously they lied through their teeth but it was a new sort of politics and Cameron and Remain didn't have an answer to it. 

It's a bit scary to find out what you can do with Facebook. Cambridge Analytica can tell with 90% certainty whether you vote and if so, how you vote. They even know if you're in a relationship that's going to end shortly, usually before you know it. 

It's all about the "likes". The more you like the more they know about you. I think it was about a thousand (maybe less) likes and Facebook and its subsidiaries know you better than your partner. Quite worrying how we've easily handed over our information. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

In the simplistic of terms:

They lied their arses off. 

We bored their pants off. 

😁

Those are probably the most sensible 10 words that have been written on this 67 million word thread.

Do you know anyone that has developed deep feelings for  a bar graph? Conversely , can you think of any examples of people killing and dying for a flag? Heart rules the head every time. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,591]

7 hours ago, Herman said:

In the simplistic of terms:

They lied their arses off. 

We bored their pants off. 

😁

Have to say, props for that one!

[benchwarmer 625]

21 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yes, of course there were some. Ricardo has his reasons and he issensible enough to have reasoned them for himself.

I am talking of the 750K who swung it towards Leave. And without stereotyping people too much, I can guarantee you that more than 750K, who never vote in any other election, voted because they believed we would be better off financially purely by not contributing to the budget each year and that swarms of EU citizens wouldn't be swamping the Labour Exchange and pinching our jobs. And I will also guarantee that more than 750K who voted are on benefits and had no intention of doing the jobs that these EU citizens were pinching. And that was why they voted that way. I can guarantee you I heard it from at least half of the members of my golf club. And one in particular, who now because he is receiving his state pension, can shout his mouth off because he isn't on benefits anymore.

Cocky Cameron was so confident of the outcome of the referendum that he used it as a test of his leadership.  The 750k is composed largely of people who knew little and cared even less about the EU but voted Leave give Cameron a bloody nose.  Sad but true.

Edited September 22, 2023 by benchwarmer

[Pyro Pete 1,918]

 

[Herman 9,820]

I see Bravermann is being a despicable **** again.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

I see Bravermann is being a despicable **** again.

Didn't know she had stopped

[Herman 9,820]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Didn't know she had stopped

She's somehow managed to take her ****iness to a further level.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 minutes ago, Herman said:

She's somehow managed to take her ****iness to a further level.

She breaches the code of humanity let alone the ministerail one. Persecution for your sexual orientation doesn't qualify? What does persecution mean then?

[KiwiScot 1,460]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

She breaches the code of humanity let alone the ministerail one. Persecution for your sexual orientation doesn't qualify? What does persecution mean then?

Being asking about parties qualifies.

[benchwarmer 625]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

I see Bravermann is being a despicable **** again.

Our Buddhist Home Secretary says multiculturalism isn't working.  Sums it up really.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

When she said multiculturalism isn't working, did she mean that it turns out that having Sunak as PM doesn't get you a good trade deal with India?