Euro referendum Glasto disenfranchised?

[cornish hick]

1 hour ago, 5co77ie said:

Best bet lets rename The Isles of Scilly as 'Little England' and dump the Tory/UKIP scum there. We need to keep workers rights, keep human rights, keep what's left of environmental policy - without those we are nothing.

 

 

No way ffs The Scillies are far too lovely for those scum !! Give them a cold windswept barren rock way oop north!

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, PFests said:

Good response from Corbyn on DC's statement in the Commons.

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0efcd00b-79dd-4536-8eef-cfe29ccb6dab

Link if interested.

I just watched them both.

Dave made a pretty good job of covering all the bases he needs to cover if he's going to win the vote.

Jezza waffled.

Yes, Corbyn did have some good things to say but he was all over the place with it, more interested in having a pop at the tories than pushing for an 'in' vote - and with a dreadful delivery.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 hours ago, 6t6o6m said:

I'm voting to stay as I don't like voting based on some politician confident assumptions. 

Quite

it's an absolute joke that we've ended up in the same situation as indyref, with the 'status quo' option having set out a clear plan for how things will work in the event of them winning but the 'change' campaign being based entirely on hypotheticals

if anything it should be the other way around

Edited February 22, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[PFests]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I just watched them both.

Dave made a pretty good job of covering all the bases he needs to cover if he's going to win the vote.

Jezza waffled.

Yes, Corbyn did have some good things to say but he was all over the place with it, more interested in having a pop at the tories than pushing for an 'in' vote - and with a dreadful delivery.

Correction: Jezza was good by Jezza standards

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, PFests said:

Correction: Jezza was good by Jezza standards

You're probably not wrong.

The thing is, tho, is that Dave out-performed him by a country mile, and Dave did it all without having to read it all from sheets as Jezza did ... and Dave is the guy that some on the left want to believe is an incompetent in all his does.

There was defo a place for some of what Jezza said about the benefits Labour sees from our EU membership, but it went far too much into minutiae at times I was sure we were going to have Jezza reading another letter from Mrs Miggins.

I know that style shouldn't matter over substance but for many it does ... and anyway, what's wrong with having both style and substance?

Edited February 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

You're probably not wrong.

The thing is, tho, is that Dave out-performed him by a country mile, and Dave did it all without having to read it all from sheets as Jezza did ... and Dave is the guy that some on the left want to believe is an incompetent in all his does.

There was defo a place for some of what Jezza said about the benefits Labour sees from our EU membership, but it went far too much into minutiae at times I was sure we were going to have Jezza reading another letter from Mrs Miggins.

I know that style shouldn't matter over substance but for many it does ... and anyway, what's wrong with having both style and substance?

Anyone on the left who genuinely believes Dave isn't a good public speaker/statesman etc is deluding themselves, it's his strongest asset. And even if it wasn't initially a strength, he's been party leader for over 10 years, he's had enough practice. Not that 10 years of practice would improve Jezza to a level beyond 'shambolic', but still

[PFests]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

You're probably not wrong.

The thing is, tho, is that Dave out-performed him by a country mile, and Dave did it all without having to read it all from sheets as Jezza did ... and Dave is the guy that some on the left want to believe is an incompetent in all his does.

There was defo a place for some of what Jezza said about the benefits Labour sees from our EU membership, but it went far too much into minutiae at time I was sure we were going to have Jezza reading another letter from Mrs Miggins.

I know that style shouldn't matter over substance but for many it does ... and anyway, what's wrong with having both style and substance?

No doubt. Politics aside, there's no arguing DC is an extremely capable speaker in the Commons. 

It was good of Jezza to actually provide some valid opposition in regards to DC's 'reforms' not addressing the real issues. It's a shame though he doesn't have that ability though to really put across a strong argument.

Putting them head to head like that though does expose just how far apart in that leading characteristic they really are.

[GlastoSimon]

Can't say I agree with that.

Week after week at PMQs, Cameron struggles unless its something he has a prepared answer to, hence why struggles at (or even pulls out) of election debates etc. etc. If he doesn't know what to say, he blabbles on about the same things which fits his agenda, even if they're irrelevant to the question. Even when he does have an answer, it often involved a petty put down or a joke for the boys.

If Cameron is a good speaker, the standards have dropped massively.

Edited February 22, 2016 by GlastoSimon

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

Can't say I agree with that.

Week after week at PMQs, Cameron struggles unless its something he has a prepared answer to, hence why struggles at (or even pulls out) of election debates etc. etc. If he doesn't know what to say, he blabbles on about the same things which fits his agenda, even if they're irrelevant to the question. Even when he does have an answer, it often involved a petty put down or a joke for the boys.

Why does that mean he's a bad public speaker? If anything, being able to effortlessly see off potentially tricky questions with a putdown or 'joke for the boys' is a key sign of a very good public speaker.

[zahidf]

ha cameron verbally bitch slapped boris

they will be in open warfare now. apparently cameron is absolutely furious at boris and its open season now on him.

[PFests]

2 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

Can't say I agree with that.

Week after week at PMQs, Cameron struggles unless its something he has a prepared answer to, hence why he pulls out of election debates etc. etc. If he doesn't know what to say, he blabbles on about the same things which fits his agenda, even if they're irrelevant to the question. Even when he does have an answer, it often involved a petty put down or a joke for the boys.

If Cameron is a good speaker, the standards have dropped massively.

I do see how you mean. It does frustrate me when there's a genuine question and he manages to swerve it and turn it into a 'labour can't be trusted on the economy' 'only a strong NHS with strong economy' etc etc. 

It's sometimes more obvious than not but the ability to spin a question he's completely unprepared for into a pro-tory point is a quality of a good politician.

[GlastoSimon]

11 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Why does that mean he's a bad public speaker? If anything, being able to effortlessly see off potentially tricky questions with a putdown or 'joke for the boys' is a key sign of a very good public speaker.

A good public speaker should be able to provide the answer to a question/issue, convincing people or at least persuading people re: the legitimacy of their viewpoint. Cameron doesn't do that.

Evasive public speaker = good public speaker? Not so sure myself. I get that being evasive is perhaps part of the role, but that's what makes a good public speaker these days?? The great public speakers of the past didn't need putdowns, let's put it that way.

I didn't agree with Hilary Benn's view on Syria, yet you can see why people value him as a good public speaker. He persuaded many over the issue, even if I didn't agree with the points he made.

Edited February 22, 2016 by GlastoSimon

[GlastoSimon]

8 minutes ago, PFests said:

I do see how you mean. It does frustrate me when there's a genuine question and he manages to swerve it and turn it into a 'labour can't be trusted on the economy' 'only a strong NHS with strong economy' etc etc. 

It's sometimes more obvious than not but the ability to spin a question he's completely unprepared for into a pro-tory point is a quality of a good politician.

Politician is a bit more accurate than public speaker I guess.

I think if Labour had a good public speaker (Corbyn had some good points today, but they weren't quite presented in the right way, for example) then Cameron would be blown out of the water, it'd show massively.

A real lack of persuasive opposition over the last 6 years has really cost the left. Sturgeon for example has shown that the potential to persuade people does exist.

[PFests]

2 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

A good public speaker should be able to provide the answer to a question/issue, convincing people or at least persuading people re: the legitimacy of their viewpoint. Cameron doesn't do that.

Evasive public speaker = good public speaker? Not so sure myself. I get that being evasive is perhaps part of the role, but that's what makes a good public speaker these days?? The great public speakers of the past didn't need putdowns, let's put it that way.

I didn't agree with Hilary Benn's view on Syria, yet you can see why people value him as a good public speaker. He persuaded many over the issue, even if I didn't agree with the points he made.

Don't confuse being a good public speaker with being a good politician. A large area of overlap but a large difference..!

Being a PM at PMQs requires a different sort than answering questions as a minister in a usual session.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

A good public speaker should be able to provide the answer to a question/issue, convincing people or at least persuading people re: the legitimacy of their viewpoint. Cameron doesn't do that.

Evasive public speaker = good public speaker? Not so sure myself. I get that being evasive is perhaps part of the role, but that's what makes a good public speaker these days?? The great public speakers of the past didn't need putdowns, let's put it that way.

I didn't agree with Hilary Benn's view on Syria, yet you can see why people value him as a good public speaker. He persuaded many over the issue, even if I didn't agree with the points he made.

Cameron isn't bad if well briefed and better still (like today) if prepared. I don't agree much with Cameron around the EU but I want him to sell it well to the people who might be swayed towards 'remain' and I think he did that today.

He's less good at off-the-cuff - which is why he tries to avoid reporters questions, and why he goes into a sort of waffling auto-pilot mode if he is put on the spot when not prepared.

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[GlastoSimon]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Cameron isn't bad if well briefed and better still (like today) if prepared. I don't agree much with Cameron around the EU but I want him to sell it well to the people who might be swayed towards 'remain' and I think he did that today.

He's less good at off-the-cuff - which is why he tries to avoid reporters questions, and why he goes into a sort of waffling auto-pilot mode if he is put on the spot when not prepared.

 

I find it hard to side specifically with Cameron, given his objectives in these negotiations were to appease the right-wing fragments of the Tory party along with the kippers and their motives.

I suppose ultimately its in or out, and staying in is very much a lesser of two evils (changes Cameron wants to make vs absolute chaos of 'exit' vote). Therefore its in my interest that Cameron does do some convincing.

Edited February 22, 2016 by GlastoSimon

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

I find it hard to side specifically with Cameron, given his objectives in these negotiations were to appease the right-wing fragments of the Tory party along with the kippers and their motives.

while I agree, it ends up being about him having pissed off the other member states for very little, because there's nothing there to really appease the kipper types - but there never could be anything that would anyway.

The changes themselves are very minor, and everything about them could be reversed by a future Labour Govt of they wanted to. There's not really anything to get worked up about, and some of it lessens some people's worries about our future in Europe.

 

19 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

I suppose ultimately its in or out, and staying in is very much a lesser of two evils (changes Cameron wants to make vs absolute chaos of 'exit' vote). Therefore its in my interest that Cameron does do some convincing

Exactly.

By the fact of him being PM, he's the only real personality that's able to influence opinions in a big way. I want him to do a good job with that, because I want 'in' to win.

[dooke10]

The argument for trusting Cameron's influence is that he won the majority last year thus the majority will go with him again.

[smudger]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Cameron isn't bad if well briefed and better still (like today) if prepared. I don't agree much with Cameron around the EU but I want him to sell it well to the people who might be swayed towards 'remain' and I think he did that today.

He's less good at off-the-cuff - which is why he tries to avoid reporters questions, and why he goes into a sort of waffling auto-pilot mode if he is put on the spot when not prepared.

 

I think (hope/pray) we may see a better side of him over this. He understands how important the EU is to our economy, all PM's have, even the Thatch, in fact anyone who actually has to run the country understands just how massively stupid the decision would be to leave. An argument based on the heart, blind hope, nationalism and ignorance does not make good economic sense and one thing that's stronger in (most) Tory's hearts that those usual feelings, is the desire to make money.

When he spoke during the Scottish referendum we saw him, and also Gordon Brown, speak about something they both clearly believed in. Both were passionate, articulate and convincing,

I know it sticks in many peoples throats to have to put your trust in a Tory PM, it certainly does in mine, but on this occasion I think we have little choice.

Edited February 22, 2016 by smudger

[rawaudioinput]

Found two very strong and articulate articles; one pro-Brexit, the other anti:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/what-britain-would-look-like-after-brexit/

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2015/04/17/sionaidh-douglas-scott-constitutional-implications-of-a-uk-exit-from-the-eu-some-questions-that-really-must-be-asked/

[somecoolusername]

Really interesting piece on Newsnight tonight about the splits within the Labour and Tory parties on the issue of Europe leading up to the 1975 referendum. Would give it a look on iplayer

[rawaudioinput]

I'll check that out cheers

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, rawaudioinput said:

Found two very strong and articulate articles; one pro-Brexit, the other anti:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/what-britain-would-look-like-after-brexit/

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2015/04/17/sionaidh-douglas-scott-constitutional-implications-of-a-uk-exit-from-the-eu-some-questions-that-really-must-be-asked/

the big problem with any 'out' view is that every out view differs. Out-ers want different things from getting out.

So while that pro-exit article gives a vision of what it might be, it's also a vision of what it might not be either.

[PFests]

9 hours ago, rawaudioinput said:

Found two very strong and articulate articles; one pro-Brexit, the other anti:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/what-britain-would-look-like-after-brexit/

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2015/04/17/sionaidh-douglas-scott-constitutional-implications-of-a-uk-exit-from-the-eu-some-questions-that-really-must-be-asked/

Thanks for sharing. Quality piece by Dan Hannan there. Though holding some questionable views elsewhere, he's particularly well-versed on the EU and does a great job at clarifying the democratic side of this debate. Not the typical tory and little Englander by any means.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, PFests said:

Thanks for sharing. Quality piece by Dan Hannan there. Though holding some questionable views elsewhere, he's particularly well-versed on the EU and does a great job at clarifying the democratic side of this debate. Not the typical tory and little Englander by any means.

Is it?

It makes plenty of assumptions around claimed up-sides, but pretends there's no down sides.
It gives no context to falling EU trade since 2006, and tries to pretend it's a fixed trend when it isn't.
It pretends that the rest of the world would be there for the UK's taking - when the rest of the world is there anyway for the UK's taking when we're in the EU.

And on top of that it misrepresents the contributions to the EU by various countries, by counting money paid to the EU but nothing of what is received directly back - which is revealed by it saying that Norway pays less than half what the UK does.

The more-normal statement around a comparison with Norway deducts from both's contribution what is received directly back - and which makes the Norway contribution per-head slightly more than the UK contribution per-head.

The main problem with 'out' views is that each one is different, and that none of the 'out' views are what can be assumed we'd do if out. The reality is that our govt would do what that govt felt was in their own interests ... which with tories in power would suck any savings towards them and their cronies, while leaving the rest of us to carry any losses.