Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[LondonJohn]

*sniff, sniff* I smell a goalpost moving.

*sniff, sniff* I don't - though I do smell something different. For one thing, you were quite obviously referencing the campain (which has indeed been long and concerted) by Remain supporters to challenge - and even render void - the Leave outcome of the 2016 referendum; and for another thing, your implication within your use of the words "weren't going to take it sitting down" is of a concered effort to attack the outcome.


By the way, I don't know if you've ever seen my stated position on Brexit? I was - and still am - a firm supporter of Remain. However..... like it or not, we held a referendum on the matter, and like it or not, there was a majority in that referendum for Leave. The dreadful error (by Cameron) was to put this to a referendum in the first place. But it was, and the result was what it was.

 

[LondonJohn]

How? The UK is perceived universally as governed by untrustworthy, incompetent, greedy, idiots.

Um.... what? And "perceived universally"?

And irrespective of that (which IMO is not correct and is instead the product of a particular political bias....), the UK has products and services which other countries want to buy (and vice versa). It is in the interests of negotiators on both sides of every trade deal to sort those deals out quickly, efficiently and with as little friction within each deal as possible.

Let's see what actually happens.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the few global perceptions that's actually accurate.

It's only the British public ('informed' by the British press) that can't see it.

You genuinely still believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among the media in the UK to a) smear Corbyn unjustly and b) promote Johnson and the Conservative party unjustly?

And similarly, you still believe that the British public was stupid enough to not be able to think for itself and instead voted as it was instructed to do by this media conspiracy?

If so, I suggest you're not really a fan of democracy. If it doesn't give you the result you apparently wanted, that is. I hear the weather in Venezuela is very nice at this time of year....

 

[Darat]

You genuinely still believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among the media in the UK to a) smear Corbyn unjustly and b) promote Johnson and the Conservative party unjustly?



And similarly, you still believe that the British public was stupid enough to not be able to think for itself and instead voted as it was instructed to do by this media conspiracy?



If so, I suggest you're not really a fan of democracy. If it doesn't give you the result you apparently wanted, that is. I hear the weather in Venezuela is very nice at this time of year....

A woman from Blyth said she voted for Johnson because she wanted to see more money in her area. She lives in one of the areas that has been hit the most by the Tories "austerity" cuts, all of which were supported by Johnson.

 

[Information Analyst]

You genuinely still believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among the media in the UK to a) smear Corbyn unjustly and b) promote Johnson and the Conservative party unjustly?

Do you genuinely believe that the right-wing press would have similarly ignored the sort of moral transgressions Johnson is guilty of if Corbyn have committed them? Do you genuinely think that the press would have ignored it if Corbyn had had un-numbered illegitimate children, or had referred to Muslim women as "letterboxes" and "bank robbers," had wasted millions of pounds of public money on unfulfilled vanity projects?

Seriously...

 

[ceptimus]

Do you genuinely believe that the right-wing press...

What about the left-wing press? Daily Mirror and Guardian for example.

The fact that you (and almost everyone else) are fully aware of Johnson's faults is testament to the fact that they were fully and repeatedly reported. Just as Corbyn's faults were.

 

[Planigale]

Do you genuinely believe that the right-wing press would have similarly ignored the sort of moral transgressions Johnson is guilty of if Corbyn have committed them? Do you genuinely think that the press would have ignored it if Corbyn had had un-numbered illegitimate children, or had referred to Muslim women as "letterboxes" and "bank robbers," had wasted millions of pounds of public money on unfulfilled vanity projects?

Seriously...

How do you know about Johnson's moral failings and illegitimate children (although this is a somewhat old fashioned concept that only children born subsequent to some religious ceremony are legal), if they were not mentioned in the press? There was considerable mention in the press about a row with his ex including a recording, about whether he may have had sex with a UK domiciled US business woman, about his children from previous relationships. Where was the similar scrutiny of other leaders private lives? Certainly the possibly criminal behaviour of the ex leader of the SNP was never picked up whilst in office.

Historically the British have always seemed willing to turn a blind eye to sexual infidelities in the PM and focus on politics.

Wasn't it a right wing paper that had the recording of the row?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

*sniff, sniff* I smell a goalpost moving.

Surely not, I mean why on earth would a senior Leave figure saying before the referendum that they would campaign for a second referendum if they lost be taken as evidence that they might campaign for a second referendum if they lost. That's just crazy talk!

 

[catsmate]

Um.... what?

Have you not noticed, or glossed over, the incompetence, stupidity and ignorance of recent UK political players?

And "perceived universally"?

Yes. Try talking to people from outside the UK.

And irrespective of that (which IMO is not correct and is instead the product of a particular political bias....),

the UK has products and services which other countries want to buy (and vice versa).

Trade can be substituted. Other countries are becoming unwilling to be further drawn into the collapse of the UK.

It is in the interests of negotiators on both sides of every trade deal to sort those deals out quickly, efficiently and with as little friction within each deal as possible.

Resolved in their own interests. And such negotiations are further hampered by the belief that the UK is not to be trusted, as well as (at a political level) grossly ignorant of the realities of trade.

Let's see what actually happens.

Indeed we will.

 

[Information Analyst]

What about the left-wing press? Daily Mirror and Guardian for example.

The fact that you (and almost everyone else) are fully aware of Johnson's faults is testament to the fact that they were fully and repeatedly reported. Just as Corbyn's faults were.

Yes, because the Mirror and the Guardian have exactly the same reach as the Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express, Times, etc.

 

[ceptimus]

Yes. They do. Anyone who wants to buy a copy can - they're on sale alongside those other papers you mention.

At one time (roughly 1956 to 1976) the Daily Mirror was the UK newspaper with the greatest daily circulation, but it's become less popular in recent years.

What's your point?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

A woman from Blyth said she voted for Johnson because she wanted to see more money in her area. She lives in one of the areas that has been hit the most by the Tories "austerity" cuts, all of which were supported by Johnson.

Wow, "a woman from Blyth." Well that anecdote proves it, there was definitely a conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public. Thank you for this amazing data point.

 

[Nessie]

Wow, "a woman from Blyth." Well that anecdote proves it, there was definitely a conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public. Thank you for this amazing data point.

I remember that interview and thinking how does Johnson get away with it? He votes for austerity and then people affected by that austerity happily vote for him.

There is no conspiracy, it is just that too many of the British public are in awe of upper middle class English public school boys who are superb at charm, but are actually totally ruthless and self centred.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. They do. Anyone who wants to buy a copy can - they're on sale alongside those other papers you mention.

At one time (roughly 1956 to 1976) the Daily Mirror was the UK newspaper with the greatest daily circulation, but it's become less popular in recent years.

What's your point?

It's strange, isn't it? A seeming inability to apply logic and reason to empirical evidence. And yes, I certainly don't remember, for example, Johnson's row with his girlfriend being front and centre across all media outlets for at least 24 hours. Not.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"........

 

[LondonJohn]

Have you not noticed, or glossed over, the incompetence, stupidity and ignorance of recent UK political players?


Yes. Try talking to people from outside the UK.





Trade can be substituted. Other countries are becoming unwilling to be further drawn into the collapse of the UK.


Resolved in their own interests. And such negotiations are further hampered by the belief that the UK is not to be trusted, as well as (at a political level) grossly ignorant of the realities of trade.


Indeed we will.

I mean...... apart from all the other significant exaggerations, distortions, and evidence-free assertions within this post of yours.....

"Other countries are becoming unwilling to be further drawn into the collapse of the UK."

The collapse of the UK? You seriously believe that crap?!

I wish the referendum outcome had been a Remain majority, but it wasn't. And I can be pretty certain that the projections of macroeconomic indicators show that the UK would fare better economically (and culturally, for that matter) by remaining in the EU than it will do by leaving the EU.

But what I don't believe for one moment - and what not one of the serious economic projections predicts - is that leaving the EU will precipitate "the collapse of the UK". That's the stuff of polemic and deliberate agitprop - either from those within the Remain camp who are still seeking to overturn the referendum outcome, or from those who intend to scaremonger against Johnson's Conservative government at all costs.

"The collapse of the UK"? Credibility: shot.

 

[LondonJohn]

I remember that interview and thinking how does Johnson get away with it? He votes for austerity and then people affected by that austerity happily vote for him.

There is no conspiracy, it is just that too many of the British public are in awe of upper middle class English public school boys who are superb at charm, but are actually totally ruthless and self centred.

You do realise, don't you (or maybe you don't) that austerity was not intended as a deliberate and long-lasting attack on lower-income and disadvantaged people in the UK*? For all the wrongs and rights of an austerity programme, its sole purpose was to allow for very tight reins on the public finances, in order to allow for rebuilding of the country's balance sheet and regear the economy for anticipated future growth. And that future growth would have the intention of benefiting everyone.

And you do remember, don't you (or maybe you don't) that at the point when the last Labour government left office in 2010, they'd screwed up the public finances to an extraordinary degree (not all the fault of the Labour admininistration for sure, but a significant part of it was their fault). Perhaps it's time to remind everyone once again of Liam Byrne's now-infamous "joke" note about there being "no money left".

And incidentally, had the UK Government at that point continued with the same sort of damage to the country's balance sheet, it's far from unlikely that the UK could have received a credit downgrade to the point where our government bonds were no longer classified as investment grade. And that, on its own, would have had absolutely disastrous implications for the UK economy. Most anti-austerity campaigners probably ignore that factor or don't even understand it.

One can certainly debate the rights and wrongs of using an austerity approach for an economy in the state of the UK's in 2010. I personally think it's a flawed approach when applied to the extent used by the Con/LibDem coalition of 2010-2015. I'd have preferred to have seen a much more limited austerity programme, coupled with a boost to public infrastructure spending. But it's reductive, simplistic, vindictive and plain wrong to espouse the view that the Conservative-led governments of 2010-present day were/are using austerity simply to make certain people's lives more miserable for the hell of it (while - so the playbook goes - "further enriching their wealthy friends and backers in the process").


* Of course it's accurate to say that the austerity programme in the UK did disproportionately disavantage certain communities. And I'd argue that it was too austere an austerity programme. But it was intended as a means to an end - and that end was (hopefully) increased future prosperity for all.

 

[SezMe]

*sniff, sniff* I don't - though I do smell something different. For one thing, you were quite obviously referencing the campain (which has indeed been long and concerted) by Remain supporters to challenge - and even render void - the Leave outcome of the 2016 referendum; and for another thing, your implication within your use of the words "weren't going to take it sitting down" is of a concered effort to attack the outcome.


By the way, I don't know if you've ever seen my stated position on Brexit? I was - and still am - a firm supporter of Remain. However..... like it or not, we held a referendum on the matter, and like it or not, there was a majority in that referendum for Leave. The dreadful error (by Cameron) was to put this to a referendum in the first place. But it was, and the result was what it was.

Whoooooosh!

 

[LondonJohn]

Whoooooosh!

Would you be so considerate to explain how and why that was a "whoosh" moment? Was I perhaps responding to something that you'd actually written as a joke? Or did I miss the point of your post in some other way?

 

[The Don]

You do realise, don't you (or maybe you don't) that austerity was not intended as a deliberate and long-lasting attack on lower-income and disadvantaged people in the UK*? For all the wrongs and rights of an austerity programme, its sole purpose was to allow for very tight reins on the public finances, in order to allow for rebuilding of the country's balance sheet and regear the economy for anticipated future growth. And that future growth would have the intention of benefiting everyone.

Well that was the government's claim, but it appears that if they were genuinely trying to repair the public finances, they were going about it entirely the wrong way.

OTOH they have done an exceptionally good job at increasing poverty, accelerating income and wealth inequality, reducing taxes for the most wealthy whilst at the same time hamstringing the UK economy.

They have singularly failed to meet their stated objective whilst at the same time delivering huge benefits for their backers - I suppose it could be coincidental.

 

[McHrozni]

And you do remember, don't you (or maybe you don't) that at the point when the last Labour government left office in 2010, they'd screwed up the public finances to an extraordinary degree (not all the fault of the Labour admininistration for sure, but a significant part of it was their fault).

The year 2010 was when the largest economic debacle in 70 years took place. Can explain out how significant were the actions of Labour party in bringing about and popping the real estate financial bubble in the US?

McHrozni