A thread for those who are voting OUT of the EU to make it fair

At the end of what he said he was more than 50% sure he would vote to remain.

Gracesgran your comments about Gisela Stuart or about rosesarered's politics are entirely irrelevant. There are many people across the spectrum who have the highest respect for GS without the implication that she is of necessity therefore Right wing. In the same way, many people respect and admire Ruth Davidson without being dyed in the wool Conservatives.
This simplistic "4 legs good , 2 legs bad" attitude is prejudiced and, frankly, shortsighted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Obieone - I do not think so although, of course we will not know.

What he seemed to be explaining is really what a financial advisor would explain. You think this investment (leaving the EU) is interesting and would like to give it a go but are you prepared to lose what (he calculated) you may lose by doing it. Obviously he knows you may or may not but as a risk averse person (i.e., someone who cannot afford the loss and isn't prepared to gamble) he has decided that he is not sufficiently sure of the upside that may be possible to risk the downside that may also be possible.

That seemed one of the most reasonable assessments I have heard and, I would assess, typical of someone assessing financial risk. He is not saying that anything is certain which both sides keep doing so annoyingly, because, as he says at the beginning of the article - there are no facts, most of it is calculation. His calculations lead to him thinking there is a greater financial risk in coming out than staying in and his assessment of what we would gain (for him - he is not saying it is for anyone else) does not outweigh the risk.

Oh Alea [big sigh] I am happy to hear comments on what I actually wrote but please do not comment on what you "think" I wrote - it is unhelpful . I did not comment on GS's politics, not did I say she was right wing.

I think Martin Lewis was the first person I heard saying that we would be voting on our idea of risk rather than fact. That is correct as far as I can see. Both sides appear to have different ideas of what facts are.

theconversation.com/drug-prices-post-brexit-an-expensive-pill-to-swallow-60728

This is an article about prices after Brexit, using the drug companies as an example.

I can believe that roses would vote Labour if Gisela Stuart was the leader. I know lifelong Tory and Libdem voters who voted for Blair. Doesn't say much for their political acumen, though.

I agree re ML Jen. I have seen leavers say that those wanting to stay in are not optimists but it seems, from my view of it all, they want the sort of optimism that allows a person to bet their house on the chance that the horse that someone has told them might bring home a fortune.

I feel much more comfortable away from "this will happen", "that will happen", much of it exaggerated or untrue and prefer working with probability, i.e., this may happen within these parameters. However, there will always be some who bet the house on a horse someone has told them will be a sure win sadly.

"Last week several bookmakers cut their odds for a vote to remain to 1/6. That means people would have to risk £6 for a potential profit of £1.

Ladbrokes reported that there were lots of people prepared to back Remain despite the short odds.

Most bookmakers have the odds for leave at 7/2. A £2 stake would return a profit of £7.

Perhaps an easier way to track the bookmakers' odds over time is to look at what they imply about the chances are of each side winning. If both sides were at evens they'd both have an implied probability of 50%.

On the Betfair betting exchange, the probability they suggest of a remain vote has risen from about 65% a month ago to nearly 80% now."

From the BBC.

If it gives you satisfaction to be petty Gracesgran I didn't say that you did. <equally big sigh >
RTW

I really need to have a word with the hound about her rellies.

Why do you think that you can tell me I am being irrelevant and them not expect an answer Alea. I notice you too have sunk to making personal remarks. I was not being petty as you call it I was commenting on an error that you used to substantiate the "irrelevance" of my comment to roses (not to you).

You said Gracesgran your comments about Gisela Stuart ... politics are entirely irrelevant. In otherwords you did say that I commented in GS's politics. I just replied that I had not and I hadn't.

I really have no idea what "I really need to have a word with the hound about her rellies." means. It is lost on me I'm afraid.

I don't think I have made a personal remark but you do seem very quick to cast aspersions on others.
Never mind about the hound remark, it clearly went over your head.
Bottom line seems to be that (some) "Entrenched Remainers " may rant speak they please.
Anybody else is rubbished.
Fortunately I do intend to base my decision, for what it is worth, on the issues not on personalities, either in RL or on GN.

I cannot think why the Labour Party would want to move to become more like the Conservatives just to pick up the odd vote when they would lose so many more
Perhaps, Gracesgran, some in the Labour Party think that if it worked for them last time it could work for them again as they picked up more than the odd vote in 1997. There are also very many people who are 'floating voters' who agree with some policies of each party but are not 'dyed in the wool' Tory, Labour or Lib Dems etc.
'Floating voters' are the ones who keep democracy going!
I am sure there are many Labour politicians and voters who believe that they will never get back into power as long as JC is the leader and, unless they move forward instead of backwards, they will never be in government again.
Others may disagree of course.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Surely parties should not change to suit various opinions

Surely, in a real democracy, they should change to some extent to reflect the views of the people who elect them? Political Parties should represent and act on what the electorate want, not the other way round.

If a Party never gets elected into any positions that give it power to change things where people want change, then it would seem to make logical sense for the Party to shift its focuses to be more in line with what the people want who would support them with votes.

Labour traditionally supported working class people whom the Trade Unions represented, and the unions supported Labour because of that. What political parties are about comes from their members. They don't invent themselves and ask people to support them; people express desired outcomes and political parties get on with it.

I was not "rubbishing" anyone nor was my comment about remaining or leaving - do you actually read any posts or just take offence at the name of the poster, because that is how it appears

Oddly enough I do. . ..and am surprised your comment was not relevant to the thread which it was on neither about leaving or remaining. if your comment was merely about another member's politics, that's rather impertinent isn't it?
I also take exception to this attempt at a crushing put down by dj (if you can discuss other members in the third party why not)
I can believe roses would vote Labour if GS was (were, actually) the leader. I know of lifelong Tory and Libdem voters who voted for Blair. Doesn't say much for their political acumen though
This is the sort of patronising remark being dished out to anybody who dares to diverge from the received wisdom.

You couldn't make it up.

thatbags, I was going to post something on those lines, but decided that I had no wish to enter the fray again.

For the party line to overpower the views of those who vote for it (or who almost vote for the representatives of it) is to miss the whole point of the democratic voting system.

"Doesn't say much for their political acumen though" Perhaps it DOES say something about their political acumen - they considered the situation at the point where they were voting and voted accordingly, instead of following the party line "My party, right or wrong"

Interesting how the motives of someone voting against their normal direction are seen differently from different sides of the house - if they move toward the line one supports, they are bravely following their conscience, if they move away, they are traitors deserting the party! Very subjective!

Alea Roses has share her politics in great detail - even telling us about her moves from party to party. I cannot see, therefore, why I was being "impertinent".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=52vLnTgf5d8&list=RD52vLnTgf5d8

Tony Blair.

I simply want to say that I do NOT 'share my politics in great detail' and do not know what you mean about 'moves from party to party' .I DO however give a lot of thought to who I will vote for in GE's as does everyone and have never believed in 'my party right or wrong' mentality. My politics and future voting intentions have nothing to do with you Gracesgran the posts about me/ to me are dimply vindictive as is Djens.

Have you said that you have voted Tory and Libdem before, roses?
You have said above that if Gisela Stuart lead the Labour Party you would vote Labour.
We are not making it up, are we?
Therefore how is that vindictive?

I seem to remember you were a big Green Pary supporter until not that long ago, durhamjen, although now JC's at the helm of the Labour Party you've returned to the fold with renewed fervour. Nothing wrong with switching alliance from party to party, so why so nasty about roses?

I am sure there are many Labour politicians and voters who believe that they will never get back into power as long as JC is the leader and, unless they move forward instead of backwards, they will never be in government again.

At the risk of disagreeing with myself:

JC himself is, of course, changing his views so much and so rapidly to appease those more to the right of his party that we could find ourselves in the end with a Labour party which is nearer to New Labour than that which Jeremy Corbyn ever envisaged. Would it be electable or would the voters think that he changes his views as often as he changes his socks and not trust him to change again?

And if JC can change his views - and he is leader of his party - what is so wrong with a voter changing theirs? Or perhaps the voters do not so much change as see the parties evolving to something more in line with their own views?