tonyh29 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, darrenm said: Have you read this? Might explain why leave had more show https://waitingfortax.com/2017/09/18/16188/ The money spent by either side wasn’t that far apart was it ?( £1m more for leave ) * It should be noted that Stronger in , is /was also under investigation for not providing all the information , yer man on the web link only appears to be interested in one side best I could see ? * Edit - not counting the govt spend of £9m on a leaflet campaign Edited October 13, 2017 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 13, 2017 There are lots and lots and lots of question marks about Cambridge Analytical, who seemingly might have put rather a lot of effort into Leave. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: The money spent by either side wasn’t that far apart was it ?( £1m more for leave ) * It should be noted that Stronger in , is /was also under investigation for not providing all the information , yer man on the web link only appears to be interested in one side best I could see ? * Edit - not counting the govt spend of £9m on a leaflet campaign Haven't heard about remain being investigated. I'd hazard a guess it's not quite as dodgy as the money laundering going on for leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 38 minutes ago, Chindie said: There are lots and lots and lots of question marks about Cambridge Analytical, who seemingly might have put rather a lot of effort into Leave. Sourced their info (legally) from Facebook didn’t they ? ... all those what kind of tree are you and who were you in a previous life things that people kept completing and sharing was building up a heck of a database Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 13, 2017 28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Sourced their info (legally) from Facebook didn’t they ? ... all those what kind of tree are you and who were you in a previous life things that people kept completing and sharing was building up a heck of a database The issue rather seems to be who, why rather than how with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 14, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted October 14, 2017 Philip Hammond went from being accused of treason over the EU to being accused of threatening the 'negotiations' in the space of about 12 hours. Nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2017 23 minutes ago, Chindie said: Philip Hammond went from being accused of treason over the EU to being accused of threatening the 'negotiations' in the space of about 12 hours. Nuts. Presumably in the right wing press? Anything to avoid talking about the actual issues and problems at hand and down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2017 This is quality 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 14, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 3 hours ago, blandy said: This is quality Yet utter rubbish 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 2 hours ago, darrenm said: Yet utter rubbish Agreed, I don't think it's a good summary at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 14, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2017 Which bit of it isn't true? Describes both parties down to a T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Just now, bickster said: Which bit of it isn't true? Describes both parties down to a T 'The Tory leadership, who are pushing through Brexit, are on the whole in favour of remaining' 'The Labour leadership has to argue half-heartedly for Remain to hold its coalition together' 'Most Conservative MPs are in favour of Remain, but fear that if they do what is right, and oppose the Government, they will pave the way for a Labour government' 'Many Tories would accept that a Corbyn government, though unpleasant, would be a price worth paying to stop Brexit' 'Many Labour MP's would prefer not to have a Corbyn led government' (this one is maybe a quarter true) That's about half the comment that is utter rubbish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 14, 2017 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2017 Only this week Theresa May refused to answer whether she'd now vote to leave if a new referendum were held. The chancellor is getting accused of Treason, that's effectively the Tory leadership Jeremy Corbyn 7/10 comment, he's never once been Pro-EU ever. He's only slightly turning towards it now because the Unions (RMT aside) are telling him to plus the vast majority of his MPs are Pro-remain More Tory MPs are remain, they are just cowering because they fear their constituents arent and they want to stay in a cushy job (the bit about fearing a Labour win is balls, that's just public window dressing) There will be plenty of Tories voting Labour as a one off next time, if Labour change their policy as many expect, mainly because they realise how disastrous leaving will be The Labour MPs thing is absolutely spot on, most are still on the Blair side of the party They've just accepted that they can do little about it right now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 This argument is absolute rubbish. May campaigned for Remain a year ago, sure, but nothing she has done since becoming PM has suggested that she wants to stay in the EU. She is, after all, the PM - this power is in her hands, right now. Yet she was so desperate to be seen to be getting on with Leaving that she invoked Article 50 before the Tories had a strategy or an agreed list of priorities or anything. In pointing out that many Cabinet members voted for Remain - which I assume is this person's real point - the writer is ignoring that Cabinet members have a] changed their minds, or b] decided that we need to Leave for the sake of democratic legitimacy (which is functionally the same as wanting to Leave). The Conservatives have pushed a bill through two of the three required readings in the Commons. With the exception of Ken Clarke, not a single one of them has voted against the government - are you still going to be arguing that they 'really' want to stay after the third reading has passed? I see no reason to take Corbyn's '7/10' comment at anything other than face value; ie, that he favoured Remain but with significant concerns about aspects of membership. Regardless, the point is moot, Labour are not arguing for Remain (as the man said in his comment), half-heartedly or otherwise. They are arguing for a longer transition period before Leaving, and they may change their tune if Brexit becomes deeply unpopular, but they are not, as a matter of fact and public record, arguing for Remain. This is another version of point 1. Many Tory MP's have decided that we should Leave for reasons of democratic legitimacy, and they have had ample opportunities to demonstrate this supposed deep personal opposition already, yet have totally failed to do so. Another interesting thought experiment here - if the election went the way people expected, and the Tories had a 150-seat majority, would we be seeing Conservative defections over Brexit left, right and centre? Because that's the logical assumption if all that is keeping them on the Leave path is a fear of Corbyn. I think that's self-evidently bollocks. See point 3. I don't think it's 'spot on' at all. Labour have a caucus that is divided into three main groups - 1) Corbyn enthusiasts; 2) party loyalists who will follow the leader if the leader is strong; and 3) Corbyn opponents. Even group 3 is split between those who would probably genuinely prefer a Tory government that a Labour one under Corbyn (the John Mann/Jess Phillips type) and those who personally oppose him but will grudgingly fall into line while Labour are riding above 40% in the polls. That comment started with 'foreigners may be confused by the intricate workings of the British democratic process. An explanation is therefore called for'. If any actual confused foreigners read that comment, they understand British politics less than they did before they started. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 There are some of the finer points which are certainly debatable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that there are plenty of people on both sides being forced by political expediency to say stuff that they don't believe in a million years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Thank you @HanoiVillan saves me typing it all. On the subject of Corbyn as he's my chosen specialist subject. I firmly believe he has been honest all the way through that's he's 7/10 in favour of the EU. You can be eurosceptic, see fault in the EU but appreciate the economic benefit the SM and CU currently provides. A bit like @blandy described as his own view of the EU a page or so back. When questioned the other day he said he voted remain and would do again even though the populist answer would be like all the Tories are doing and saying 'ive changed my mind, I'd vote leave now'. So why wouldn't you take it at face value? Surely you'd be more suspicious if he was suddenly waving EU flags, or if he went full leave after previously being tepid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 20 minutes ago, ml1dch said: There are some of the finer points which are certainly debatable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that there are plenty of people on both sides being forced by political expediency to say stuff that they don't believe in a million years. . . . and if that were the extent of the point, it would be fair enough, but it isn't. And to be honest, I don't think the difference between 'wanted to Leave' and 'wanted to Remain but voted to Leave at every opportunity up to and including exit' is particularly meaningful. History won't care about that sort of fine-grained distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 38 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: . . . and if that were the extent of the point, it would be fair enough, but it isn't. I think the comment was an attempt at satire rather than an academic analysis of the British democratic process. It was an exaggeration for effect. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 hour ago, snowychap said: I think the comment was an attempt at satire rather than an academic analysis of the British democratic process. It was an exaggeration for effect. In that case it wasn't funny because it was completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts