And, there was no reason why "Lord" Cameron had to actually hold the referendum he did. He could have delayed to allow more time to sell the benefits of EU membership, or for the Leave side to try and unite behind one version of the incompatible fantasies they were offering. He could have simply spent 5 years doing something reasonably useful to build the UK economy and repair the damage done between 2010 and 2015 before things got too bad, and found there wasn't time to get that particular stupid idea through Parliament.
I recall that each side had about a year to make their arguments
A few months after the referendum I overheard a conversation on a train. This guy was a scientist and was saying that his lab would lose most its funding once we left the EU and that he’d probably be out of work.
He, unsurprisingly, was in favour of remaining in the EU, but had voted leave to “send David Cameron a message” assuming that the majority would vote to remain. I had to resist the urge to go over to him and punch him very hard.
And, there was no reason why "Lord" Cameron had to actually hold the referendum he did. He could have delayed to allow more time to sell the benefits of EU membership, or for the Leave side to try and unite behind one version of the incompatible fantasies they were offering. He could have simply spent 5 years doing something reasonably useful to build the UK economy and repair the damage done between 2010 and 2015 before things got too bad, and found there wasn't time to get that particular stupid idea through Parliament.
What he should have done after just scraping home with the Scottish referendum, was to have devoted at least five years to sorting out the UK constitution and especially, the relationship between the different bits, how to fit England into that, and reforming the Westminster franchise, preferably using the Irish electoral system as his model.
In stead, Lightweight Dave the Wonderboy thought - if he's actually up to thinking - I've wung that one. Now I can do the same to the nutters in my party. And crashed.
And, there was no reason why "Lord" Cameron had to actually hold the referendum he did. He could have delayed to allow more time to sell the benefits of EU membership, or for the Leave side to try and unite behind one version of the incompatible fantasies they were offering. He could have simply spent 5 years doing something reasonably useful to build the UK economy and repair the damage done between 2010 and 2015 before things got too bad, and found there wasn't time to get that particular stupid idea through Parliament.
What he should have done after just scraping home with the Scottish referendum, was to have devoted at least five years to sorting out the UK constitution and especially, the relationship between the different bits, how to fit England into that, and reforming the Westminster franchise, preferably using the Irish electoral system as his model.
In stead, Lightweight Dave the Wonderboy thought - if he's actually up to thinking - I've wung that one. Now I can do the same to the nutters in my party. And crashed.
In doing so I hope he at least learned the significance of having all the press on your side vs 90% of it on the other.
We have been over this so many times. Leaving the EU has made things worse and will be worse for a good while. Even Mr Mogg said benefits would take 50 years
We have been over this so many times. Leaving the EU has made things worse and will be worse for a good while. Even Mr Mogg said benefits would take 50 years
Maybe he did, but I don't recall him being any too specific about the nature of these long-awaited *benefits*.
A few months after the referendum I overheard a conversation on a train. This guy was a scientist and was saying that his lab would lose most its funding once we left the EU and that he’d probably be out of work.
He, unsurprisingly, was in favour of remaining in the EU, but had voted leave to “send David Cameron a message” assuming that the majority would vote to remain. I had to resist the urge to go over to him and punch him very hard.
I know we can't extrapolate mass electoral behaviour from one case, but your story could be Exhibit A against the idea that Leavers were tricked by misinformation into voting as they did: the guy knew EXACTLY what the problems with brexit were, and voted for it anyway.
I suppose it shows that many people do not vote on the issues at all, even on explicitly single-issue votes, but rather on the basis of personality and the idea of "sticking it to someone".
A few months after the referendum I overheard a conversation on a train. This guy was a scientist and was saying that his lab would lose most its funding once we left the EU and that he’d probably be out of work.
He, unsurprisingly, was in favour of remaining in the EU, but had voted leave to “send David Cameron a message” assuming that the majority would vote to remain. I had to resist the urge to go over to him and punch him very hard.
I know we can't extrapolate mass electoral behaviour from one case, but your story could be Exhibit A against the idea that Leavers were tricked by misinformation into voting as they did: the guy knew EXACTLY what the problems with brexit were, and voted for it anyway.
I wonder if the chap did lose his funding, and his job?
That's going to depend on his job and research area. But, certainly access to research funding would be much harder - even if he wasn't receiving EU funding, the loss of these routes made competition for the UK funding pots much higher (there has, of course, been a recent deal to reopen Horizon funding, though after a few years of being closed to UK based researchers). If he's in a research intensive institution then he may have struggled to get the best research students and RAs, with both the increase in difficulty in obtaining visas and getting EU funding for early career mobility, and less able staff will impact long term funding through reduced quality of research output. In an institution with a larger teaching load then the loss of fees from non-UK students would have put massive pressure on available resources for paying staff.
I note that the latest immigration figures (for both 2021/22 and 2022/23) have over 50% of immigrants being students and their dependents. This is currently contributing to net migration because of a massive drop in non-UK students arriving during the covid period, so we're not yet seeing students return home after completion of studies (typically 2-5y after arrival in the UK, depending on the courses they're taking).
I suppose it shows that many people do not vote on the issues at all, even on explicitly single-issue votes, but rather on the basis of personality and the idea of "sticking it to someone".
I think there was a lot of that. Cameron had recently been revealing to be "sticking it" to a pig. A lot of people were fed up with "Call Me Dave" and his hubris and arrogance. They wanted to teach him a lesson.
Lovely bouncy Boris was offering an alternative. So yes, it was a vote partly based on personalities.
Add to that a lot of misinformation, a lot of basic frustration with the way things were being blamed on the EU (the problems were real, the blame wasn't).
The "single issue vote" was heavily impacted by so many other issues.
In an institution with a larger teaching load then the loss of fees from non-UK students would have put massive pressure on available resources for paying staff.
There hasn't been a drop in the number of Overseas students at my institution. Quite the reverse.
I've seen a definite drop in EU students, but an increase in students from Africa and the far east (though, this year a drop in Chinese students which relates to a completely different international situation). Though, most of the students I deal with are postgraduate which may not reflect undergraduate students.
The costs of visas for students (which, pre-Brexit EU students didn't need to pay), reduced opportunities to support themselves (ie: the number of hours of paid work they can do while studying is strictly limited) and the additional administration associated with them (eg: we're now needing to fill out monthly reports on each student to record attendance and demonstrate that they're still studying full time) all create barriers to recruiting non-UK students. These are all additional barriers for EU students, but for other students they're largely the same barriers as before - though, there are now issues for students families that have been recently introduced, and the government is making getting visa extensions (eg: to complete a PhD, because no one does that in 3y) much harder.
I suppose it shows that many people do not vote on the issues at all, even on explicitly single-issue votes, but rather on the basis of personality and the idea of "sticking it to someone".
I had a similar response to all the Labour centrist MPs who were bemoaning the election of Jeremy Corbyn despite the fact that they had nominated him.
"But we didn't want him to win."
"You nominated him. That was your chance to have your say, and you chose to say that you thought he would be an acceptable leader."
"But that's not what we meant - we just wanted to have a range of candidates from across the political spectrum, so it would look better when the Blairite won."
Another minister bites the dust. Robert Jenrick quits because the government isn't as keen as he is on scrapping human rights legislation.
Oh, the poor love. I hear Rwanda's nice if you like that sort of thing.
Why, yes - and hopefully they'll paint over the welcoming murals, just like he did when there was a faint chance of making traumatised children happy for a few minutes...what a miserable wankpuffin he is.
The Rwanda situation is a mess anyway. It is being pushed to appease the right of the party. We would only be sending about 200 people a year (there is actually only space for a hundred at the moment). Rwanda gets to decide who goes really. We have to take refugees from Rwanda and for the first five years we have to pay to support those who we send over. It is easier just to deal with the refugees here. Of course some of what I just described hasn’t been mentioned much in the press.
I was hoping Rish!'s emergency press conference was going to be something exciting, like a John Major style "pick another leader or STFU" or calling an election. But no, just more tilting at Rwandan windmills.
I guess we all realise that Cruella is totally bonkers, but surely the rest of the gobshites can't all be as mad? Or can they?
It's getting very hard to tell the genuinely bonkers from those cosplaying bonkers because they want to be LOTO this time next year.
Fair comment. If I were a betting man (which I ain't), my money would be on Cruella as Leader Of The (Very Small) Opposition. Her lunacy is of an infectious variety, I fear.
I guess they see no political traction in policies on NHS, poverty, etc., as they have zero to offer. The right wing seem convinced that a further Brexit will tempt people, i.e., keep out forrins and Britain will be prosperous. And also a racist message. It won't work, but as above, being leader is tempting.
I guess they see no political traction in policies on NHS, poverty, etc., as they have zero to offer. The right wing seem convinced that a further Brexit will tempt people, i.e., keep out forrins and Britain will be prosperous. And also a racist message. It won't work, but as above, being leader is tempting.
Tempting to those whose insanity is incurable, perhaps...
You're right as regards NHS, poverty, climate crisis etc. etc. - problems which only affect the Little People, who don't count.
The Rwanda situation is a mess anyway. It is being pushed to appease the right of the party. We would only be sending about 200 people a year (there is actually only space for a hundred at the moment). Rwanda gets to decide who goes really. We have to take refugees from Rwanda and for the first five years we have to pay to support those who we send over. It is easier just to deal with the refugees here. Of course some of what I just described hasn’t been mentioned much in the press.
...so it would actually be cheaper to just give each refugee a million pounds to go somewhere else? Given that the government has so far squandered £140M on this ludicrous policy.
The latest 'Big Issue' has a sobering article about how that £140 million could have been better spent. I read it and wept. What is wrong with these people?
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
The latest 'Big Issue' has a sobering article about how that £140 million could have been better spent. I read it and wept. What is wrong with these people?
Correction: it is £240 million. Think what good this money could have done for the homeless, the marginialised .... the NHS ... schools ... My heart weaps. Psalm 37 (again!) this morning as I need to stop fretting about these ghastly people in government and carry on with my work. But really ... Lord have mercy ... on all of us
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
The Falklands conflict was used by Thatcher as a Churchill moment. The video of her in army tanks trying to look tough is appalling. It sealed her dominance. It gave her a feeling of complete power. It was when the right of party stared its rise in influence, that lead to them being the puppet masters of future leaders. That rise in influence for them has lead to where we are today. Rishi has managed to tame it somewhat but it was a still there
Comments
I recall that each side had about a year to make their arguments
He, unsurprisingly, was in favour of remaining in the EU, but had voted leave to “send David Cameron a message” assuming that the majority would vote to remain. I had to resist the urge to go over to him and punch him very hard.
In stead, Lightweight Dave the Wonderboy thought - if he's actually up to thinking - I've wung that one. Now I can do the same to the nutters in my party. And crashed.
In doing so I hope he at least learned the significance of having all the press on your side vs 90% of it on the other.
Maybe he did, but I don't recall him being any too specific about the nature of these long-awaited *benefits*.
Quite so. They forget, of course, that there are no pockets in a shroud...
I know we can't extrapolate mass electoral behaviour from one case, but your story could be Exhibit A against the idea that Leavers were tricked by misinformation into voting as they did: the guy knew EXACTLY what the problems with brexit were, and voted for it anyway.
That’s why I wanted to hit him
Plenty of pockets in the clothes they’ll wear while they’re alive though.
I note that the latest immigration figures (for both 2021/22 and 2022/23) have over 50% of immigrants being students and their dependents. This is currently contributing to net migration because of a massive drop in non-UK students arriving during the covid period, so we're not yet seeing students return home after completion of studies (typically 2-5y after arrival in the UK, depending on the courses they're taking).
They probably objected to him when he was alive, too. The process of becoming a Lich is not one associated with being a decent human being.
I think there was a lot of that. Cameron had recently been revealing to be "sticking it" to a pig. A lot of people were fed up with "Call Me Dave" and his hubris and arrogance. They wanted to teach him a lesson.
Lovely bouncy Boris was offering an alternative. So yes, it was a vote partly based on personalities.
Add to that a lot of misinformation, a lot of basic frustration with the way things were being blamed on the EU (the problems were real, the blame wasn't).
The "single issue vote" was heavily impacted by so many other issues.
I've always thought the 19th century would have suited him better.
Hmm... he does have a sort of Benthamite "New Poor Law" feel to him, doesn't he?
There hasn't been a drop in the number of Overseas students at my institution. Quite the reverse.
The costs of visas for students (which, pre-Brexit EU students didn't need to pay), reduced opportunities to support themselves (ie: the number of hours of paid work they can do while studying is strictly limited) and the additional administration associated with them (eg: we're now needing to fill out monthly reports on each student to record attendance and demonstrate that they're still studying full time) all create barriers to recruiting non-UK students. These are all additional barriers for EU students, but for other students they're largely the same barriers as before - though, there are now issues for students families that have been recently introduced, and the government is making getting visa extensions (eg: to complete a PhD, because no one does that in 3y) much harder.
I had a similar response to all the Labour centrist MPs who were bemoaning the election of Jeremy Corbyn despite the fact that they had nominated him.
"But we didn't want him to win."
"You nominated him. That was your chance to have your say, and you chose to say that you thought he would be an acceptable leader."
"But that's not what we meant - we just wanted to have a range of candidates from across the political spectrum, so it would look better when the Blairite won."
You can't fix stupid.
/sarcasm
Oh, the poor love. I hear Rwanda's nice if you like that sort of thing.
Why, yes - and hopefully they'll paint over the welcoming murals, just like he did when there was a faint chance of making traumatised children happy for a few minutes...what a miserable wankpuffin he is.
I would have thought GCHQ would be better placed to help but what do I know?
I have a clear memory of the headmaster calling an assembly at which he announced the death of George VI - the headmaster having tears in his eyes!!!
It needs to, it is far too broad a church.
I guess we all realise that Cruella is totally bonkers, but surely the rest of the gobshites can't all be as mad? Or can they?
It's getting very hard to tell the genuinely bonkers from those cosplaying bonkers because they want to be LOTO this time next year.
Fair comment. If I were a betting man (which I ain't), my money would be on Cruella as Leader Of The (Very Small) Opposition. Her lunacy is of an infectious variety, I fear.
Tempting to those whose insanity is incurable, perhaps...
You're right as regards NHS, poverty, climate crisis etc. etc. - problems which only affect the Little People, who don't count.
...so it would actually be cheaper to just give each refugee a million pounds to go somewhere else? Given that the government has so far squandered £140M on this ludicrous policy.
It might be funny, if it were not so tragic.
When weren't they? Seriously? Since the Falklands War? Apart from under Blair?
8 years younger, so no memories at all of that. I do remember headlines from Korea. Also watching the Sputniks etc a few years later.
Well, "meltdown" has strong overtones in the general range of "self-destruction". In those terms, we can say with 100% certainity that the tories have NOT been in meltdown all the time since the Falklands. They won three back-to-back post-Falkland majorities, the first two by landslides, during the Thatcher/Major years alone.
Now, if you mean something like "moral meltdown", yeah, sure. Though I'm not seeing why the Falklands in particular would be a dividing line for that.
Correction: it is £240 million. Think what good this money could have done for the homeless, the marginialised .... the NHS ... schools ... My heart weaps. Psalm 37 (again!) this morning as I need to stop fretting about these ghastly people in government and carry on with my work. But really ... Lord have mercy ... on all of us
The Falklands conflict was used by Thatcher as a Churchill moment. The video of her in army tanks trying to look tough is appalling. It sealed her dominance. It gave her a feeling of complete power. It was when the right of party stared its rise in influence, that lead to them being the puppet masters of future leaders. That rise in influence for them has lead to where we are today. Rishi has managed to tame it somewhat but it was a still there