psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
I'd vote for Beetle Bailey.
Last edited:
David Cameron resigns
- Thread starter BDBoop
- Start date
Francesca R
Girl
Boris Johnson is 4/6, Theresa may 9/4 (Paddy Power)
That has the probability of Johnson as double that of May
(And as we all know the bookies always get these things right)
That has the probability of Johnson as double that of May
(And as we all know the bookies always get these things right)
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,354
I've seen "the biggest miscalculation by a British prime minister since Suez" bandied about this morning.
Not old enough to remember that, but Cameron has been shockingly bad, worse than Brown and I thought that wasn't possible
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
He's certainly a contender, though there were Perceval and North.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Well, Bojo has finally made it to the top of the heap! Over the bloodied bodies of his own party, it seems, and ahead of possibly a huge exit of business interests out of the country. He will be the PM of a financial wasteland. But good on him for succeeding!
He won't even be in the cabinet in a week. He massively over-played his hand during the campaign, and apart from a couple of ridiculous dodgy dossiers he gambled all of his remaining credibility on the "punishment" emergency budget threat. He hasn't a hope in hell of running for the leadership.
Francesca R
Girl
Osborne's smarts compared to Cameron's lay in his desire not to have a referendum in the first place. But that didn't carry the day and the punishment budget was daft.
Short memories here, aren't there. Gordon Brown wins that hands down amongst post-war PMs, with John Major hard on his heels.
Francesca R
Girl
Plenty of people (probably including me) regard letting the UK leave the EU as a far bigger blunder than anything Brown did.
Some would complain that is non democratic of me
Some would complain that is non democratic of me
I'm not sure he actually had a choice. With a coalition government, and then one with only a very small majority, this centrist Europhile PM had to keep his eurosceptic wing at bay for as long as possible. They would have thwarted him at every turn (remember what happened to John Major?) if he hadn't dangled the carrot of a referendum. It may look a bad decision now, but arguably it has bought him 3 or 4 years of peace in the party, and stability in the leadership of the country.
Don't forget, Leave won. Are you really saying that the democratic choice of the majority of the electorate is a disaster? Because denying the majority of the country any say on this matter is a bit "never mind your pretty head about this. We know what's best for you", don't you think?
Francesca R
Girl
Yes it is a bit like that which often irks people when such a statement is made, but that is typically the nature of parliamentary systems hence there have only been three referendums in 40 years.
There are various matters which aren't put to the public, the reintroduction of the death penalty for instance (now, I guess, possible) due to the public not being trusted to make a sensible decision.
Hearing the members of Great British PublicTM interviewed this morning, it's depressing that many people made their decision based on misinformation (and in some cases lies) - on both sides. I'm not sure how many people have actually thought through the implications of exit.
Certainly most of the Leavers I have spoken to have assumed things will continue exactly as before with the exception of their particular bugbear(s) which would be fixed immediately. We don't know what the post-Brexit world will look like but I'm certain that unless the UK abides by EU rules then we won't have free access to the European Economic Area.
Francesca R
Girl
He had a choice, which is why Labour did not promise a referendum (and of course did not win the 2015 election).
The perceived benefit of the choice he made was winning in 2015. It worked.
The perceived cost was Brexit, which he gambled would not happen. That happened too.
Benefit less cost is sharply negative, even to Cameron I believe. And for the UK I believe it would have been better if we had had PM Miliband today (A side benefit from that, unknowable at the time, would be that Corbyn was not Labour leader)
Last edited:
I'm one of those people. Of course we'll need to see how it all plays out - maybe we will look back in 20 years time and see this day as the start of some new golden age for Britain - but I have serious doubts about that.
If there had been a mainstream party that had a serious reform agenda for the EU and an "over my dead body" negotiating method, then we might have had a few more scraps in Europe, but we wouldn't actually have needed a referendum. In the same way as the populace felt unrepresented by any of the parties on the eve of the 2nd Iraq war, the electorate hasn't been able to express any opinion on the EU through the orthodox parliamentary system for decades now, and sooner or later those sorts of frustrations will lead to these sorts of results.
I wonder many were taken in by the easily dismissable £350m per week?
Francesca R
Girl
That's a rationale to "have a serious reform agenda for the EU", and a self-justifying rationale not to not bother doing that and have a referendum on leaving that is predestined to be a poisoned well instead.
It underlines the magnitude of an unforced blunder.
Last edited:
I'm sure the BBC sought her out specifically but there was one person who clearly stated that the reason why she voted Leave was explicitly because she had been promised £350m a week for the NHS.
Now this morning the "promise" has been rolled back, she feels hoodwinked and thinks that she voted the wrong way.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
It's the same Farage who declared that the Brexit won "without a single bullet being fired".
Jo Cox's relatives will for sure appreciate this statement at his right value...
