Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Sapphire

westernpromise wrote: »

I was genuinely undecided and abstained because both sides were blatantly lying and fabricating nonsense. One side was saying "free money" and the other was saying "vote for us or puppies will die". Both sides were saying the other side's supporters were evil, Remain perhaps slightly more shrilly. Both sides were equally untruthful and entirely unworthy of support,

To vote for either would have lent the process a credibility that it did not deserve.

For myself, I voted on the basis of facts that I researched carefully from numerous sources, out of strong conviction. None of the propaganda made a jot of difference to my vote. The same goes for other people I know. Nothing I've seen or heard since has changed my mind – in fact, it has just strengthened my convictions.

westernpromise

Sapphire wrote: »

For myself, I voted on the basis of facts that I researched carefully from numerous sources, out of strong conviction. None of the propaganda made a jot of difference to my vote. The same goes for other people I know. Nothing I've seen or heard since has changed my mind !!!8211; in fact, it has just strengthened my convictions.

Still wouldn't work for me. If you have one party advocating Nazism and another advocating Marxism, doing your own research would tell you that Marxism kills, expropriates, ruins or imprisons massively more people than does Nazism. Both sides would untruthfully deny any plans to do any such thing, and both would untruthfully claim that it was what only their opponents wanted to do.

Hence you could rationalise yourself into voting for Nazism because your research has persuaded you that it's less bad even though they're both murderous liars.

It's not a perfectly analogy, because Jeremy Vermyn's Labour is both Nazi and Marxist, but it does illustrate the general point. Voting in some circumstances simply confers legitimacy on the odious.

fewcloudy

Sapphire wrote: »

For myself, I voted on the basis of facts that I researched carefully from numerous sources, out of strong conviction. None of the propaganda made a jot of difference to my vote. The same goes for other people I know. Nothing I've seen or heard since has changed my mind !!!8211; in fact, it has just strengthened my convictions.

A bit like this then? Yup, I too carried out extensive research before voting......

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

Still wouldn't work for me. If you have one party advocating Nazism and another advocating Marxism, doing your own research would tell you that Marxism kills, expropriates, ruins or imprisons massively more people than does Nazism. Both sides would untruthfully deny any plans to do any such thing, and both would untruthfully claim that it was what only their opponents wanted to do.

Hence you could rationalise yourself into voting for Nazism because your research has persuaded you that it's less bad even though they're both murderous liars.

It's not a perfectly analogy, because Jeremy Vermyn's Labour is both Nazi and Marxist, but it does illustrate the general point. Voting in some circumstances simply confers legitimacy on the odious.

And the tinfoil hat award goes to...

Sapphire

westernpromise wrote: »

Still wouldn't work for me. If you have one party advocating Nazism and another advocating Marxism, doing your own research would tell you that Marxism kills, expropriates, ruins or imprisons massively more people than does Nazism. Both sides would untruthfully deny any plans to do any such thing, and both would untruthfully claim that it was what only their opponents wanted to do.

Hence you could rationalise yourself into voting for Nazism because your research has persuaded you that it's less bad even though they're both murderous liars.

It's not a perfectly analogy, because Jeremy Vermyn's Labour is both Nazi and Marxist, but it does illustrate the general point. Voting in some circumstances simply confers legitimacy on the odious.

I see what you mean – if you conceived both options as odious when it came to the referendum, then I can see why you didn't vote. However, for myself, the propaganda (which was the subject of your original message) had no influence on my vote – my deeply held convictions did (I confirmed my views to myself through research), and I would have voted the way I did propaganda or no propaganda.

When it comes to voting for political parties, my voting is similar – I do take into account particular policies that parties advocate, and even more so their general political stance. But actual propaganda does little to influence my vote. In fact, my mind is generally made up before any election propaganda even starts, and it would take a great deal to shift me from that position. Generally, it is a question of opting for the least damaging option, as I see it, based on my own knowledge, experiences, history and archaeology studies and so on. I see not voting at all as something of a cop-out and would be reluctant to abstain, given how long we had to fight to obtain the vote …

ben501

Arklight wrote: »

The Leave side promised £350 million pounds a week

I see this is being regurgitated again. Can someone remind me where and when it happened as I can't remember.

I do remember the leave campaign (an organisation with no direct affiliation to a political party, so in no position to make political promises) having a poster on a bus suggesting we could/should fund the NHS with that amount, but I'm unable to find anything resembling a promise.

Carl31

ben501 wrote: »

I see this is being regurgitated again. Can someone remind me where and when it happened as I can't remember.

I do remember the leave campaign (an organisation with no direct affiliation to a political party, so in no position to make political promises) having a poster on a bus suggesting we could/should fund the NHS with that amount, but I'm unable to find anything resembling a promise.

i think the exact words were "lets fund out NHS instead"

sometimes i say, "lets go to the pub later", doesn't mean i promised we would

Herzlos

Carl31 wrote: »

i think the exact words were "lets fund out NHS instead"

sometimes i say, "lets go to the pub later", doesn't mean i promised we would

Let's go to the pub later.
Ok, I've taken the afternoon off work
Sorry, I didn't actually mean we should go to the pub.

Herzlos

ben501 wrote: »

I see this is being regurgitated again. Can someone remind me where and when it happened as I can't remember.

I do remember the leave campaign (an organisation with no direct affiliation to a political party, so in no position to make political promises) having a poster on a bus suggesting we could/should fund the NHS with that amount, but I'm unable to find anything resembling a promise.

How would you interpret the message on the bus? Why didn't they point out it was never an option until the morning after?

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

How would you interpret the message on the bus? Why didn't they point out it was never an option until the morning after?

It was clearly just a suggestion to point up better ways of spending £350 million a week. As the Leave campaign was not the government, and the government was pro-Remain, it's a silly distortion to suggest that it was a promise. You might as well say that Make Poverty History is a lie because they haven't.

It smacks very much of Remainers trying to give themselves permission to hate Leavers.