Mainly the product of the failure of social democrats to represent their traditional working class supporters. It is also misleading to call this effect 'right wing' as left wing populists like Melenchon in France and Corbyn have also gained influence.
It's actually mainly the product of the rise of groups funded by very powerful and wealthy individuals with vested interests espousing populist ideals and operating online using data manipulation and social engineering to operate in areas with poor legal safeguards or where current laws and policing are not up to date to deal with subversive methods of manipulating and defrauding the electorate.
So people are just dupes in general but you are somehow smart enough to see through it? You know your contemptuous attitude, which is widely held of course, is a big factor in fuelling 'populism'. Why not stand back and think instead, these are people just like me who are disaffected by the status quo and looking for something that works for them. If more of us worked along these lines rather than dismissing the electorate as stupid, we might start to get somewhere positive.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
Not sure you're living in the real world if you expect the electorate to be informed. Most people vote with their gut. There are people who will always vote Labour no matter what, same as there are people who will always vote Tory or always spoil their paper. There are many people who have opposed the EU long before any dodgy Russians or facebook manipulators turned up. We have to filter politicians lies on a daily basis on every subject under the sun. Everybody knows if a politician tells you the time, you best check your watch anyway.
No democracy is perfect but this is what we have. I have my own issues with referenda and I believe they should be used sparingly, if at all, in a representative democracy. However, the electorate were asked a question and they provided an answer. All the failures that followed can be laid squarely at the feet of our elected representatives.
Mainly the product of the failure of social democrats to represent their traditional working class supporters. It is also misleading to call this effect 'right wing' as left wing populists like Melenchon in France and Corbyn have also gained influence.
It's actually mainly the product of the rise of groups funded by very powerful and wealthy individuals with vested interests espousing populist ideals and operating online using data manipulation and social engineering to operate in areas with poor legal safeguards or where current laws and policing are not up to date to deal with subversive methods of manipulating and defrauding the electorate.
So people are just dupes in general but you are somehow smart enough to see through it? You know your contemptuous attitude, which is widely held of course, is a big factor in fuelling 'populism'. Why not stand back and think instead, these are people just like me who are disaffected by the status quo and looking for something that works for them. If more of us worked along these lines rather than dismissing the electorate as stupid, we might start to get somewhere positive.
I think if people are routinely lied to about the state of affairs through the various media outlets that people trust (news, social media etc.) then it is understandable that we end up with a massively uninformed electorate.
This isn't because people are stupid. It's because all people, everywhere, are susceptible to manipulation on some level. It's the reason why advertising is such an important part of sales because of an advertiser's ability to get a brand name into someone's head and translate that into sales.
It is just in the last decade or so people have been taking those same methods and applying them to political positions on a massive scale, through the widespread use of political advertising online and in the press.
This is not a contemptuous attitude. It is the uncomfortable truth. Humans are generally easily manipulated.
I'm not being dismissive. You just cannot see the truth because you've held onto your misguided beliefs for so long your mind cannot be changed.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Given that May's deal means we effectively become a colony of the EU, we are definitely worse off than before the Referendum. The fact that the CBI and most of the Tory Party support it is a disgrace.
No it doesn't.
The draft agreement is really nothing more than providing breathing space within which a future relationship can be agreed.
The majority of business representatives support it, despite it being less good than they would like, because it provides some short-term certainty around which they can plan.
There may still be a cliff edge, but it's been put off for a while.
Without this, those businesses most likely to be negatively affected would have to be implementing contingency plans, with the timing and volume of such decisions being such that they could well significantly influence the economy.
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
But that is exactly what all politicians of the modern era do, it is naive to think otherwise.
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
But that is exactly what all politicians of the modern era do, it is naive to think otherwise.
You can at least argue that, for example, Labour and the Tories have basic political ideologies that they strive to e.g. social democracy, neo-liberalism, that shapes and defines their mainfestos and policies.
Then look at UKIP. Each manifesto was completely different to the last one. Lot of bumf that they think the voters want to hear and little actual substance. Certainly no cohesive philosophy you could pin them to.
If voters want to vote for politicians who will literally say anything to get power, when their ambition is to get into power solely for personal gain, then they are going to get really bad governance. Exactly the problem that has paralysed our democracy for the past 2 years.
The last time populism gained a foothold in Europe, millions of people died. I'd rather not have another war just to prove populism is a terrible idea and rather it was nipped in the bud before then.
Southbank promotes working positively with the populists. I would call that appeasement.
I'd quibble also that the failures giving rise to populism are the failures of social democracy. They seem more like the failures of trickle-down capitalism and immense societal inequality, and the power-grab is essentially a game of who can most poignantly stoke fear of the rising Islamic tide amongst the indentured workforce. Of course, the wealthy are voting for this in their droves too - there's no better way to preserve hierarchy than fascism. It's a giant con, of course, and we need charismatic and effective politicians countering both it and the conditions that enable it
Mainly the product of the failure of social democrats to represent their traditional working class supporters. It is also misleading to call this effect 'right wing' as left wing populists like Melenchon in France and Corbyn have also gained influence.
It's actually mainly the product of the rise of groups funded by very powerful and wealthy individuals with vested interests espousing populist ideals and operating online using data manipulation and social engineering to operate in areas with poor legal safeguards or where current laws and policing are not up to date to deal with subversive methods of manipulating and defrauding the electorate.
So people are just dupes in general but you are somehow smart enough to see through it? You know your contemptuous attitude, which is widely held of course, is a big factor in fuelling 'populism'. Why not stand back and think instead, these are people just like me who are disaffected by the status quo and looking for something that works for them. If more of us worked along these lines rather than dismissing the electorate as stupid, we might start to get somewhere positive.
I think if people are routinely lied to about the state of affairs through the various media outlets that people trust (news, social media etc.) then it is understandable that we end up with a massively uninformed electorate.
This isn't because people are stupid. It's because all people, everywhere, are susceptible to manipulation on some level. It's the reason why advertising is such an important part of sales because of an advertiser's ability to get a brand name into someone's head and translate that into sales.
It is just in the last decade or so people have been taking those same methods and applying them to political positions on a massive scale, through the widespread use of political advertising online and in the press.
This is not a contemptuous attitude. It is the uncomfortable truth. Humans are generally easily manipulated.
I'm not being dismissive. You just cannot see the truth because you've held onto your misguided beliefs for so long your mind cannot be changed.
I'd quibble also that the failures giving rise to populism are the failures of social democracy. They seem more like the failures of trickle-down capitalism and immense societal inequality, and the power-grab is essentially a game of who can most poignantly stoke fear of the rising Islamic tide amongst the indentured workforce. Of course, the wealthy are voting for this in their droves too - there's no better way to preserve hierarchy than fascism. It's a giant con, of course, and we need charismatic and effective politicians countering both it and the conditions that enable it
Yes I should have challenged this too. We have not had social democracy for decades. Neo-liberalism and capitalism have shaped our society for the last 40 years, whereas the basic tenets of social democracy have been eroded, with an increase in poverty, privatisation, inequality and the erosion of social security, trade unions and public services.
Maybe if people voted for social democrats instead of populists we would see a positive shift from the status quo and not a negative one like we are seeing now.
Ironically, when those who vote populists moan that life was better when they were younger, they are generally referring to when public services were better funded, trade unions actually had power, the NHS wasn't on its knees, and inequality was being tackled. Yet they vote for the politicians who are anti-social democracy and pro handing over more and more power to unelected oligarchs and millionaire media magnates.
Mainly the product of the failure of social democrats to represent their traditional working class supporters. It is also misleading to call this effect 'right wing' as left wing populists like Melenchon in France and Corbyn have also gained influence.
It's actually mainly the product of the rise of groups funded by very powerful and wealthy individuals with vested interests espousing populist ideals and operating online using data manipulation and social engineering to operate in areas with poor legal safeguards or where current laws and policing are not up to date to deal with subversive methods of manipulating and defrauding the electorate.
So people are just dupes in general but you are somehow smart enough to see through it? You know your contemptuous attitude, which is widely held of course, is a big factor in fuelling 'populism'. Why not stand back and think instead, these are people just like me who are disaffected by the status quo and looking for something that works for them. If more of us worked along these lines rather than dismissing the electorate as stupid, we might start to get somewhere positive.
I think if people are routinely lied to about the state of affairs through the various media outlets that people trust (news, social media etc.) then it is understandable that we end up with a massively uninformed electorate.
This isn't because people are stupid. It's because all people, everywhere, are susceptible to manipulation on some level. It's the reason why advertising is such an important part of sales because of an advertiser's ability to get a brand name into someone's head and translate that into sales.
It is just in the last decade or so people have been taking those same methods and applying them to political positions on a massive scale, through the widespread use of political advertising online and in the press.
This is not a contemptuous attitude. It is the uncomfortable truth. Humans are generally easily manipulated.
I'm not being dismissive. You just cannot see the truth because you've held onto your misguided beliefs for so long your mind cannot be changed.
And you are not affected like the masses because?
Mainly because I don't take everything I hear and read at face value just because it aligns with my world view. Confirmation bias is the key concept here.
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Not that it matters, but my like is for the generic comment that many people are disaffected by the status quo and are looking for something that works for them.
Why is that wrong? Surely these are the type of people that we should be trying to help?
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Not that it matters, but my like is for the generic comment that many people are disaffected by the status quo and are looking for something that works for them.
Why is that wrong? Surely these are the type of people that we should be trying to help?
Fair does. Southbank's post was a massive misinterpretation of my post.
I don't disagree that if people feel disaffected we should help them. I disagree that the answer is voting for politicians who are just telling the voters what they want to hear. My thoughts are that a lot of the concerns people have are only concerns because they are being agitated by people in the media. Case in point, the places in the UK most opposed to immigration are the areas least affected by it.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Some revisions going on here. An unpleasant economic 'adjustment' was always part of the Leave deal. This was countered by long term (unspecified before the vote) recovery and growth. It was otherwise a highly polished turd, though, playing into people's experiences and fears.
Ultimately, illegal adverts like this should not be promoted during any democratic campaign:
My father in law, who 2 months before the referendum said he was going to vote Remain to protect jobs, ended up voting Leave and cited these adverts as the reason he did. He claims that they can't be lies or illegal as the police would take down any illegal adverts. He thinks the government has adequate controls to stop any false political advertising from being shown. He is very much an average voter who generally believes what he reads in the tabloids and feels disaffected by the status quo.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
There are several versions of what people call democracy.
I'd quibble also that the failures giving rise to populism are the failures of social democracy. They seem more like the failures of trickle-down capitalism and immense societal inequality, and the power-grab is essentially a game of who can most poignantly stoke fear of the rising Islamic tide amongst the indentured workforce. Of course, the wealthy are voting for this in their droves too - there's no better way to preserve hierarchy than fascism. It's a giant con, of course, and we need charismatic and effective politicians countering both it and the conditions that enable it
I think this is very true. Trickle down works as long as enough trickles down. This is not the case and even less is trickling down as time goes on and it can be argued nobody is doing anything to address it. So when somebody promises to do so, it is going to be listened to.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
So we're prosperous and democratic now? I'm convinced membership of the EU has contributed to that prosperous and democratic society.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so susceptible to populist politicians.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so suspectible to populist politicians.
Cameron and Osborne made less than helpful comments then both resigned. They were not part of any official Remain campaign.
Project Fear was invented by Brexiters as a smear campaign against ALL concerns made before the referendum. As such anyone who thinks such a project actually existed can have their views safely dismissed as the nonsense it is because if you believe Farage's fairy tales you'll believe anything.
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
Project Fear doesn't exist. It was a myth made up by Farage et all to dismiss any and all concerns of Brexit. Using this phrase just exposes you as a Faragist. No wonder you're so suspectible to populist politicians.
Do you believe the effect on the economy from Brexit will be positive, neutral or negative in terms of GDP growth and employment? Or don't you know because 'nobody knows'?
JRM reckons it could be 50 years to see the benefit - sooner or later than that in your opinion?
Cameron and Osborne made less than helpful comments then both resigned. They were not part of any official Remain campaign.
Project Feae was invented by Brexiters as a smear campaign against ALL concerns made before the referendum. As such anyone who thinks such a project actually existed can have their views safely dismissed as the nonsense it is because if you believe Farage's fairy tales you'll believe anything.
You mention Farage...What official leave campaign was he part of?
Upsides and downsides are usually with reference to the financials. There is quite a lot more to brexit than that.
Yep, Brexit is the biggest loss of rights in modern British history, difficult to forgive those who have blithely voted for me to lose my rights, and galling to have them claim me losing rights as some sort of victory.
There are few Brexiters claiming victory I think you will find.
Maybe not now, but for much of the last two years we've heard nothing, but "leave won, get over it", like I'm supposed to jsut get over my rights being stolen and the financial security of myself, my children and my eventual grandchildren (remember Rees-Mogg blithely saying it could take 50 years before there is any upside?) needlessly put at risk, and to gain what? Please tell me something, anything that is worth what is being forcibly taken from me? It's been over 2 years and nobody can tell me anything that comes even close to being worth what I'm losing.
Forcibly or democratically?
Even if we ignore the fact that it wasn't a binding referendum, that the result was a rounding error in size and that referenda aren't actually recognised by our parliamentary democracy. It's only democratic if the electorate are informed, it's clearly spelt our what will happen for each of the given options (you know, like countries that actually use referenda properly do) and the referendum is conducted under full election law.
What we had was a purely advisory popularity contest where the contestants could tell any lies they liked with impunity apparently.
It's was, and remains, a twisted corruption of the democratic process in this country, that promised the undeliverable to the uninformed.
So the electorate were all fully informed to a level that meets your criteria when we voted to join the EEC? Or at the last election? Or any election?
I think you're missing the point, and that's my fault as I didn't phrase this very well.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
Do you think this would be any different in a second referendum? For example, the project fear projections about the economy are as accurate as any predictions about the economy ever are-ie almost entirely made up. Do you think that these presentations of opinion as fact will be omitted from the Remain campaign? Or any promises that Remain may make about where the EU might or might not go in the future in relation to European armies, more federalisation or legislation on any number of things that may affect us in the future and over which we would exercise extremely limited control?
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
I take week off the thread and still the lies pour forth.
Comments
You know your contemptuous attitude, which is widely held of course, is a big factor in fuelling 'populism'.
Why not stand back and think instead, these are people just like me who are disaffected by the status quo and looking for something that works for them. If more of us worked along these lines rather than dismissing the electorate as stupid, we might start to get somewhere positive.
No democracy is perfect but this is what we have. I have my own issues with referenda and I believe they should be used sparingly, if at all, in a representative democracy. However, the electorate were asked a question and they provided an answer. All the failures that followed can be laid squarely at the feet of our elected representatives.
This isn't because people are stupid. It's because all people, everywhere, are susceptible to manipulation on some level. It's the reason why advertising is such an important part of sales because of an advertiser's ability to get a brand name into someone's head and translate that into sales.
It is just in the last decade or so people have been taking those same methods and applying them to political positions on a massive scale, through the widespread use of political advertising online and in the press.
This is not a contemptuous attitude. It is the uncomfortable truth. Humans are generally easily manipulated.
I'm not being dismissive. You just cannot see the truth because you've held onto your misguided beliefs for so long your mind cannot be changed.
The draft agreement is really nothing more than providing breathing space within which a future relationship can be agreed.
The majority of business representatives support it, despite it being less good than they would like, because it provides some short-term certainty around which they can plan.
There may still be a cliff edge, but it's been put off for a while.
Without this, those businesses most likely to be negatively affected would have to be implementing contingency plans, with the timing and volume of such decisions being such that they could well significantly influence the economy.
Remember that "populism" is not a good way to go. It describes politicians who say whatever they think people want to hear without actually having any plans to govern effectively or in the interests of the voters and generally are only doing it to get into power for less salubrious reasons.
Or at the last election?
Or any election?
Then look at UKIP. Each manifesto was completely different to the last one. Lot of bumf that they think the voters want to hear and little actual substance. Certainly no cohesive philosophy you could pin them to.
If voters want to vote for politicians who will literally say anything to get power, when their ambition is to get into power solely for personal gain, then they are going to get really bad governance. Exactly the problem that has paralysed our democracy for the past 2 years.
The last time populism gained a foothold in Europe, millions of people died. I'd rather not have another war just to prove populism is a terrible idea and rather it was nipped in the bud before then.
Southbank promotes working positively with the populists. I would call that appeasement.
Maybe if people voted for social democrats instead of populists we would see a positive shift from the status quo and not a negative one like we are seeing now.
Ironically, when those who vote populists moan that life was better when they were younger, they are generally referring to when public services were better funded, trade unions actually had power, the NHS wasn't on its knees, and inequality was being tackled. Yet they vote for the politicians who are anti-social democracy and pro handing over more and more power to unelected oligarchs and millionaire media magnates.
Why is that wrong? Surely these are the type of people that we should be trying to help?
I don't disagree that if people feel disaffected we should help them. I disagree that the answer is voting for politicians who are just telling the voters what they want to hear. My thoughts are that a lot of the concerns people have are only concerns because they are being agitated by people in the media. Case in point, the places in the UK most opposed to immigration are the areas least affected by it.
Obviously, the better informed the electorate, then better the democracy, but Brexit is unique in that is was set-up to ensure that the electorate were as uninformed as possible. I said on the previous Brexit thread (and probably on this one), it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Brexit, you shouldn't have voted for it in this referendum as it was defined as to what we'd get, and it was always clear that for it to be successful it would require politicians far more competent than any we currently have available.
In a normal election each party will produce a manifesto plus party political broadcasts, adverts, etc. There are clear laws governing the production of each of those. There's also clear laws on where the funding for that production can come from and how the parties disclose that funding. That ensures that should the electorate which to be better informed, that should easily be able to see what each candidate stands for, what each candidate is offering, and be reasonably confident that that information is accurate and what the candidate is offering is legal and possible.
The referendum ditched all those protections. If you wished to be truly informed about what you would get if you voted yes, the whole referendum was set up to ensure you couldn't. And not only that, everybody involved was allowed to lie, so not only would you find no actual factual information about what you would get, but you would be bombarded by propaganda and lies instead. Furthermore, if you did happen to find any useful information about the likely outcome of a leave vote, the campaign was allowed to lie to you about it.
It wasn't that the electorate was uninformed when voting in the referendum, it was that they were deliberately kept that way. The leave campaign made promises impossible to keep, that were self-contradictory in many cases, and ensured that anybody thinking about voting leave heard what they wanted leave to be.
We see it on here all the time, leavers saying they voted for X, Y and Z. No you didn't, you voted to leave, nothing more nothing less, but the referendum was set up to allow people to promise you that you'd get X,Y and Z no matter how impossible or damaging that may be.
If an informed electorate results in a stronger democracy, then a deceived electorate results in a weaker one. Leavers keep saying a second referendum would be undemocratic when they are a party to one of the greatest sabotages our democracy has ever suffered.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46288429
My father in law, who 2 months before the referendum said he was going to vote Remain to protect jobs, ended up voting Leave and cited these adverts as the reason he did. He claims that they can't be lies or illegal as the police would take down any illegal adverts. He thinks the government has adequate controls to stop any false political advertising from being shown. He is very much an average voter who generally believes what he reads in the tabloids and feels disaffected by the status quo.
If you think that the Remain campaign will be any more honest than the Leave campaign then I am afraid you will be in for a shock. They will depend entirely on trying to frighten people by presenting a coordinated propaganda offensive painting the future outside the EU as a disaster, which will have only a vague approximation to the truth.
As in any election, people will weigh up their thoughts and feelings about what they are being told and will vote accordingly. Your assumption, widely held, is that Remainers are smart people who are not easily deceived and Leavers are dumb and easily malleable. Whereas the capitulation to project fear is the stupidest thing of all.
In my view many leading Remainers have contempt for the people whom they represent and have spent the past 2 years insulting and demeaning them. If the words of many Remainers were applied to any other group in society it would be considered a hate crime-consider that the hope that Brexit can be solved when Brexiters die is a common refrain, for example, how loathsome is that? The generation which raised younger people and created our prosperous, democratic society are now despised and wished dead.
What happened to this then?
Project Fear was invented by Brexiters as a smear campaign against ALL concerns made before the referendum. As such anyone who thinks such a project actually existed can have their views safely dismissed as the nonsense it is because if you believe Farage's fairy tales you'll believe anything.
JRM reckons it could be 50 years to see the benefit - sooner or later than that in your opinion?