Some thoughts about Elections and Referendums

poor Joe Soap is expected to be a fiscal and international expert - hence the undemocratic nonsense that is a referendum.

I actually sat down before the referendum and studied online the views of a number of economists on all sides of the argument - I suspect that I was in a minority in doing this. Even after several weeks of this, I still felt unqualified to be asked the question.

You may be surprised that I actually agree with you Urmstongran.

The fact is that very few of us, and I include myself, had any understanding or knowledge of the complexities of international trade. It was utter folly to ask uninformed people to give a simple yes/no answer to a very complicated question.

The question is "what do we do now that we know that a serious mistake was made" Do we keep going down the wrong road or think again and turn back?

Owing to the mess we are in, poor Joe Soap is expected to be a fiscal and international expert.

Once the dust has settled after the next recession, there won’t be an EU left. Unless the Germans fancy paying for everything, which they won’t.

varian*: Unfortunately at least some of the 17.3 million people who voted leave in 2016 believed the leave liars' propaganda.

Yes, and many were unable to understand the complex isssues involved. It has now become clear that even our government/parliament did not understand. Hence the turmoil we are now in.

Unfortunately at least some of the 17.3 million people who voted leave in 2016 believed the leave liars' propaganda.

It is not the first time that 17.3 million people have got it wrong.

In 1933 17.3 million German people voted for Hitler.

17.3 million voters can be wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

willa

You are correct but the only way to deal with those who espouse ' fake news/misinformation' is to ' call them/it out'.

Sadly if somebody is arguing/denying ' factual evidence' nobody can ' debate' with them! They are not looking to ' debate' just ruddy argue or don't give a toss because their opinion / cause is more important than the truth.

POGS....Here's my point: If someone can dismiss hard and true facts by calling them 'fake news' (i.e. lies), where does one go after that? If someone denies the truth by calling it a lie, where does one go after that?

Doesn't that make it harder to have a meaningful debate?

No matter how right you are, all the other side needs to do is yell 'fake news!'' whenever they are confronted with solid arguments.

What was that old phrase about 'Divide and Conquer' ?

If someone needs to argue a point, they may resort to fake news if the fake news supports their argument.

Climate change is a prime example. Some people believe that Climate Change is a hoax. They rely on news reports that deny climate change exists. Environmentalists rely on Scientific reports to refute these claims.

willa

"Just to clarify....if someone reads an inconvenient truth (something that doesn't fit their agenda), there's no longer any need for an informed debate....all that needs to happen is for the issue to be labeled 'fake news' and it can be dismissed."
-

Sadly that is true.

If somebody does not believe in ' facts' and calls it Fake News that person/group is trying to spin and use propaganda to suit their agenda but it is upto others to ' Call them out' or insist the '. facts' are known.

Fake News/Misinformation is nothing short of ' lying'.
--

" Conversely, if the facts are consistent with someone's favor, the same report (no matter how incredible), can be enough to confirm and support a possibly mistaken position."
---

Not sure what you mean.?

A ' fact' is a ' fact' whether or not it is consistent with someone's favor. How can a ' fact' support a possible mistaken position.?

To support a possible mistaken position you have to ' twist the facts' now commonly known as using Fake News or Misinformation.

Or have I muddled it up?

Is it plausible that labeling information as 'fake' or 'misleading' can be done deliberately and by design?

Could this practice habituate people to deny or accept a news report, based solely on what they want to hear?

Just to clarify....if someone reads an inconvenient truth (something that doesn't fit their agenda), there's no longer any need for an informed debate....all that needs to happen is for the issue to be labeled 'fake news' and it can be dismissed.
Conversely, if the facts are consistent with someone's favor, the same report (no matter how incredible), can be enough to confirm and support a possibly mistaken position.

Could the lack of incentive for productive debate make it easier for people to remain hopelessly divided on the issues?

Not stopping free speech andyc what a silly comment. I just asked politely that you stop shrieking liar all the time.

what a dream , so many lovely interestingly long posts.....

varian stand by to have your post dismissed as more anecdotes (which some seem to think is a synonym for lies).
Mustn't let the facts get in the way of a load of tosh good story!

well that matters nothing to me.

traitor too

since when do people
stop free speech I wonder?

oh and I am not in the House...

loving the freedom of speech and this site. such a great place to be welcomed..

Andyc while I admire your constancy, despite disagreeing with almost everything you say, could you please stop using the term "liar"? I am no fan of TM but it is an ugly word (and not permitted in the HoC by the way). Thank you

I know I voted for total Brexit leave end of.

I am sure of that

no deceitful remain deal as put by Treason Mayhem

liar.

OUT is OUT, I get it...



no bother marching or petitions, it is in law, we leave WTO and no horrid EU deal despite all the fear and sill scaremongering..
GB is great,

next week



happy

best wishes

The survey of a 30,000-strong online panel found that only 41 per cent of those who said they do not read a newspaper voted Leave (versus 52 per cent of the general population).

Press Gazette analaysis has found that overall, national press coverage was strongly weighted in favour of Leave in the month leading up to the referendum.

Four national newspaper titles were found to be strongly biased in favour of Leave through their choice of front-page stories: the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Sun.

Data from the British Election Study found that some 70 per cent of Sun and Daily Express readers voted Leave in the referendum, followed by 66 per cent of Daily Mail readers, 55 per cent of Daily Telegraph readers and 44 per cent of Daily Mirror readers.

A report by NatCen, called Understanding the Leave Vote, said: “The balance of pro- and anti- Leave positions of the newspapers was important given how many people read them, particularly the popular press. It is interesting to note that, when it came to the EU Referendum vote, people were more likely to follow the position of the newspaper they read than the political party they identify with.”

www.pressgazette.co.uk/study-readers-of-the-sun-express-and-daily-mail-strongly-favoured-brexit-in-eu-referendum/

Oh, they were, were they varian ? Is that from a link somewhere or your imagination?
I don’t read any of those.
Articles, anecdotes, etc can be twisted to suit any purpose.

I listened t to your link * Varian*. How very sad it is and how frightening. I just hope D Cameron doesnt sleep at night and realises the monster he has unleashed and legitimised. The same Cameron who is a great pal of Rebecca Brooks of course.

Analyses of the influences on voting in the referendum showed that newspaper readership was a most significant factor. Those in "pleasant leafy areas" who voted leave were likely to be readers of The Telegraph, Daily Mail or Express.

What about the leave voters in pleasant leafy areas then?
Your view of voters is very skewed varian and producing
Anecdotes of people who say they have been badly treated by family members is neither here nor there.
There will be some anecdotes of people who voted to leave being badly treated no doubt, also by family members,
All idiots IMHO.

This caller broke into tears as she revealed that her mum and friends no longer speak to her because she voted Remain.

Jules lives in one of the most deprived areas of Sheffield, where the majority of people backed Brexit - and still do.

She told James O'Brien how she was shut out by her friends after voting to remain in the European Union.

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/caller-my-mum-doesnt-talk-to-me-voted-remain/

If you are in any doubt about the way people in deprived areas have been brainwashed by the right wing tabloids, then please listen to this lady who worked until recently in a newsagents shop in a poor part of Sheffield.

Rosie Leah......agree! The correct plural (Latin) is referenda.....my spell checker however informed me (with glaring red underline) that sadly, I was mistaken. Unable to debate the spell checker, I just let it have its way.

Agree about the Americans though, especially with their current terrifying Commander in Chief!

Hands down it's the Russians who are the masters of manipulation and infiltration. By exploiting Democracy's weaknesses they have done more damage to the West than people realize and without actually declaring war. Indeed it was the Russians who handed us our new and 'terrifying' commander in chief on a silver platter.

Americans may be meddlesome to a fault, but it is not our aim to be occupiers. In a perfect world we just want to keep Democracy safe. Alas, Democracy's biggest weakness has proven to be the electoral process.

If it were necessary to defend ourselves against Russia, I agree that it would be much better for British forces to unite with the rest of Europe. After all, we are not enemies of Europe, we just don't want to be under their control. This is why I don't understand all this concern about loss of security. It's in the interests of all European countries to pass on information about criminals and terrorists. Why should our leaving the EU make any difference to that? We will still be part of Europe, just not the EU. Honestly, some people seem to think we are going to drift away into the Atlantic when we leave the EU!