Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Another Reason Cameron Lost?
24 Answers
http://
treating voters like kids was never going to work Dave.
treating voters like kids was never going to work Dave.
Answers
Mr Martin makes a very good point. It is very true that the UK has not yet left the EU and the full implications and effects are yet to be felt. However, there were dire warnings, not least from Mr Cameron, of the “immediate consequences
10:38 Sat 10th Sep 2016
The voice of the group of eminent Economists for Brexit;
http://
was stifled by most of the media during the campaign, but is now being listened to.
http://
was stifled by most of the media during the campaign, but is now being listened to.
Depends on how much attention anyone paid to the various campaigns. A recent poll suggested, among other things, that the relative stance of the "big players" such as BoJo et al, had actually relatively little impact (although that said, given how close the vote was, even relatively small impacts could have made a difference) -- I suspect that many of the people who thought Cameron was treating voters like kids and voted Leave accordingly probably would have done so anyway, whatever he said (and, in turn, what he said was often misrepresented by Leave-supporting media, too).
So it's a mess. The reason Cameron lost is probably because, after all, he was always going to. Anti-EU sentiment, however well-motivated or not, was too strong in this country and, given the opportunity to speak out, took it (with a little help from the indifferent).
So it's a mess. The reason Cameron lost is probably because, after all, he was always going to. Anti-EU sentiment, however well-motivated or not, was too strong in this country and, given the opportunity to speak out, took it (with a little help from the indifferent).
Mr Martin makes a very good point.
It is very true that the UK has not yet left the EU and the full implications and effects are yet to be felt. However, there were dire warnings, not least from Mr Cameron, of the “immediate consequences” of a vote to leave. I know politicians’ definition of “immediate” and that of most people is somewhat different. However, we were told in no uncertain terms that there would be consequences in the first few days and weeks of a leave vote. For example, an emergency budget would be needed (did I miss it?), house prices would collapse (they haven’t and show precious little signs of doing so), interest rates would rise (er..er..), many firms would immediately announce their intention of quitting the UK (heard of many, any?) All of this was forecast by the “experts” (probably the same experts that forecast the collapse of the UK’s economy if it failed to join the euro). None of it has happened.
That is Mr Martin’s point. All the forecasts thusfar have proved inaccurate or downright wrong. Why should the electorate listen to these same “experts” who are continuing to forecast doom and gloom? I know a number of people who voted to leave (in fact around 95% or more of the people I know and asked voted to leave). Many of them said that if Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne had simply shut up and let them make up their own minds instead of trying to put the fear of God into them, they may well have voted to stay. I have to say I was not among them – I would have voted to leave whatever anybody had told me. But there is no doubt that the major Reamainers simply alienated many voters with their plainly absurd predictions of Armageddon.
It is very true that the UK has not yet left the EU and the full implications and effects are yet to be felt. However, there were dire warnings, not least from Mr Cameron, of the “immediate consequences” of a vote to leave. I know politicians’ definition of “immediate” and that of most people is somewhat different. However, we were told in no uncertain terms that there would be consequences in the first few days and weeks of a leave vote. For example, an emergency budget would be needed (did I miss it?), house prices would collapse (they haven’t and show precious little signs of doing so), interest rates would rise (er..er..), many firms would immediately announce their intention of quitting the UK (heard of many, any?) All of this was forecast by the “experts” (probably the same experts that forecast the collapse of the UK’s economy if it failed to join the euro). None of it has happened.
That is Mr Martin’s point. All the forecasts thusfar have proved inaccurate or downright wrong. Why should the electorate listen to these same “experts” who are continuing to forecast doom and gloom? I know a number of people who voted to leave (in fact around 95% or more of the people I know and asked voted to leave). Many of them said that if Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne had simply shut up and let them make up their own minds instead of trying to put the fear of God into them, they may well have voted to stay. I have to say I was not among them – I would have voted to leave whatever anybody had told me. But there is no doubt that the major Reamainers simply alienated many voters with their plainly absurd predictions of Armageddon.
Some or even most of the Brexit warnings may well have come true had Cameron done what he had said he would and stayed on whilst triggering Article 50 immediately. That's the biggest lie of all, but on the other hand I suppose we can all be grateful that it turned out to be so. There was fundamentally no way that the UK was ready to start the leaving process the day after the vote.
Another welcome boost (in a way) came from the relatively smooth and speedy transition that followed Cameron's resignation, as Theresa May became unchallenged. Again, at least it provided some stability when needed, although whether or not Theresa May will turn out to be a worthy PM remains to be seen. At any rate, a two-month leadership contest finishing only about now would have done the country no favours.
Another welcome boost (in a way) came from the relatively smooth and speedy transition that followed Cameron's resignation, as Theresa May became unchallenged. Again, at least it provided some stability when needed, although whether or not Theresa May will turn out to be a worthy PM remains to be seen. At any rate, a two-month leadership contest finishing only about now would have done the country no favours.
I like Tim Martin. He’s very down to earth.
Saw him interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg on one of the many pre-vote programmes.
When asked about the forecasts the remainers were making about the economy collapsing, he said it was (an anagram of) sloblock. Surprised the BBC let him get away with that.
And when confronted with the argument that EU countries wouldn’t want to trade with us, he doubted that the Germans would stop exporting their BMW’s or Mercedes, nor the French their Renault or Peugeot. He then said “I drive a Volvo, they are very good”!
Saw him interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg on one of the many pre-vote programmes.
When asked about the forecasts the remainers were making about the economy collapsing, he said it was (an anagram of) sloblock. Surprised the BBC let him get away with that.
And when confronted with the argument that EU countries wouldn’t want to trade with us, he doubted that the Germans would stop exporting their BMW’s or Mercedes, nor the French their Renault or Peugeot. He then said “I drive a Volvo, they are very good”!
“It Is difficult to argue against such a economic genius.”
Very possibly. But the question that needs to be asked is in whom would you rather place your trust:
(a) A bunch of career politicians who have scarcely done a day’s proper work between them and economic “experts” who, time after time, have been proved wildly inaccurate or completely wrong with their (mainly pessimistic) predictions or
(b) A man who began with one pub in north London in 1979 and who has built a business that today has just shy of 1,000 establishments (including 40 hotels and about 20 pubs in what will remain an EU country - Ireland), has a market capitalisation of more than £1bn, turns over about £1.5bn pa, employs over 35,000 staff (all of whom earn more than the national minimum wage), creates between 1,000 and 2,000 new jobs a year and is probably the most widely known brand name in the hospitality sector across the UK?
I know where my money would go (as indeed it does as I am a Wetherspoon’s shareholder).
Yes I agree, jim. Mrs May's annointment did provide some welcome stability. But more stability would have been present if Mr Cameron had done waht he said he would do - respect the result of the referendum, whatever it may be, and carry out the wishes of the electorate. Instead he chucked his toys from the pram and stormed off. So some good came from it whatever the outcome of the UK's departure from the EU.
Very possibly. But the question that needs to be asked is in whom would you rather place your trust:
(a) A bunch of career politicians who have scarcely done a day’s proper work between them and economic “experts” who, time after time, have been proved wildly inaccurate or completely wrong with their (mainly pessimistic) predictions or
(b) A man who began with one pub in north London in 1979 and who has built a business that today has just shy of 1,000 establishments (including 40 hotels and about 20 pubs in what will remain an EU country - Ireland), has a market capitalisation of more than £1bn, turns over about £1.5bn pa, employs over 35,000 staff (all of whom earn more than the national minimum wage), creates between 1,000 and 2,000 new jobs a year and is probably the most widely known brand name in the hospitality sector across the UK?
I know where my money would go (as indeed it does as I am a Wetherspoon’s shareholder).
Yes I agree, jim. Mrs May's annointment did provide some welcome stability. But more stability would have been present if Mr Cameron had done waht he said he would do - respect the result of the referendum, whatever it may be, and carry out the wishes of the electorate. Instead he chucked his toys from the pram and stormed off. So some good came from it whatever the outcome of the UK's departure from the EU.
Not sure it would have provided more stability. Britain triggering Article 50 the day after would have been like going skiing without any equipment, and probably would have ended about as badly. At least the way events have transpired allows the result of the referendum to be respected in principle, while taking the necessary time to prepare for it.
Also, your (a) and (b) above a bit of a false dichotomy. It is as easy to find a set of politicians who have "scarcely done a proper day's work between them" who supported Leave as it is to oppose it; nor were economists uniformly divided between those who agreed with you and those who are always wrong; businessmen weren't divided between competent and successful on the one hand and Remain voters on the other either.
"I am sure those on the Brexit side would say the opposite ..."
No they wouldn't - at least I wouldn't. People voted in the referendum the way they did for all sorts of reasons. They are entitled to their views and opinions and are entitled to the same as everybody else - one vote.
As staunch a Brexiter as I am I respect the Remainers' viewpoints. Just because they put their views in a particular way and just because their views do not accord with mine does not make them embarassing. There seems to be widespread contempt for the Brexiters, calling them ignorant, Little Englanders, backward and all manner of things. I'm fairly sure that there would not such widespread denigration of those on the winning side had the result gone the other way.
It's unfortunate that nothing has happened thusfar to prove the Brexiters were right or wrong (mainly because not much has happened in respect of Brexit). I'm not talking long term, because nobody knows and I am not silly enough to think we're "home & dry". But as I explained above, quite a lot has happened (or rather not happened) to prove the prophesies of immediate Armageddon were absurd. I'm talking about the immediate effects which were forecast to occur. It seems the Remainers are a bit miffed anad I can understand that. But insults aimed at the Leavers do nothing for their cause.
No they wouldn't - at least I wouldn't. People voted in the referendum the way they did for all sorts of reasons. They are entitled to their views and opinions and are entitled to the same as everybody else - one vote.
As staunch a Brexiter as I am I respect the Remainers' viewpoints. Just because they put their views in a particular way and just because their views do not accord with mine does not make them embarassing. There seems to be widespread contempt for the Brexiters, calling them ignorant, Little Englanders, backward and all manner of things. I'm fairly sure that there would not such widespread denigration of those on the winning side had the result gone the other way.
It's unfortunate that nothing has happened thusfar to prove the Brexiters were right or wrong (mainly because not much has happened in respect of Brexit). I'm not talking long term, because nobody knows and I am not silly enough to think we're "home & dry". But as I explained above, quite a lot has happened (or rather not happened) to prove the prophesies of immediate Armageddon were absurd. I'm talking about the immediate effects which were forecast to occur. It seems the Remainers are a bit miffed anad I can understand that. But insults aimed at the Leavers do nothing for their cause.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.