So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[fatshaft]

wood-Tard

[woody2]

report written by a pro eu mp, that has since been ripped to shreds and has no power

 

try again scottard......

[P.K.]

 

For me, one of the most inexcusable near silences was that of Labour and Corbyn. When he did eventually speak up, Corbyn spoke with such obvious insincerity that his message outshone his lukewarm words. He did very little more than say that on balance, he supported remain. He urged no one to vote remain, he did nothing to point out the material benefits that the EU brings to economically disadvantaged areas. It was exactly those Labour voting areas that were key in swinging it in favour of 'leave'.

 

A more vigorous Labour campaign that focussed on getting the facts out would have made a difference,

 

But I thought the reasons for remaining were obvious, why did people need it pointing out to them by their leaders? If the material benefits need spelling out so graphically then it seems the whole premise for remaining isn't quite so clear cut.

 

 

Unfortunately, with press coverage almost certainly skewed by the agenda of the proprietors, even if Corbyn et al had a good story to tell it simply wouldn't have got out there. Our so-called "newspapers" had an 82% to 18% split of articles in favour of Leave. This table tells you all you need to know about the media coverage of the referendum. You will notice that the only Labour party member in the top 10 is Corbyn:

 

Top thirty media appearances (6 May – 22 June)

 

Position Name Number of appearances Percentage of items in which they appeared

 

1 David Cameron (Conservative IN) 499 24.9%

2 Boris Johnson (Conservative OUT) 379 18.9%

3 George Osborne (Conservative IN) 230 11.5%

4 Nigel Farage (UKIP OUT) 182 9.1%

5 Michael Gove (Conservative OUT) 161 8.0%

6 Ian Duncan Smith (Conservative OUT) 124 6.2%

7 Jeremy Corbyn (Labour IN) 123 6.1%

8 Priti Patel (Conservative OUT) 65 3.2%

9 Gordon Brown (Labour IN) 52 2.6%

10 John Major (Conservative IN) 47 2.3%

11 Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative OUT) 35 1.7%

12= Chris Grayling (Conservative OUT) 33 1.6%

12= Gisela Stuart (Labour OUT) 33 1.6%

14= Theresa May (Conservative IN) 29 1.4%

14= Donald Tusk (President European Council IN) 29 1.4%

16 Nicola Sturgeon (SNP IN) 28 1.4%

17= Bernard Jenkin (Conservative OUT) 24 1.2%

17= Sadiq Khan (Labour IN) 24 1.2%

19 Liam Fox (Conservative OUT) 23 1.1%

20 Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the EC IN)

21 1.0% 21 Alistair Darling (Labour IN) 20 1.0%

22 Alan Johnson (Labour IN) 19 0.9%

23= Amber Rudd (Conservative IN) 18 0.9%

23= Ed Balls (Labour IN) 18 0.9%

25= Norman Lamont (Conservative OUT) 17 0.8%

25= Harriet Harman (Labour IN) 17 0.8%

26= Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany IN) 16 0.8%

26= Sarah Wollaston (Conservative OUT then IN) 16 0.8%

26= John McDonnell (Labour IN) 16 0.8%

30 Angela Eagle (Labour IN) 15 0.7%

 

 

This tells me that newspaper proprietors are starting to steer our version of democracy in the direction of their choosing. Possibly, in this case, off a cliff.....

 

E to make sense of the table!

Edited April 4, 2017 by P.K.

[fatshaft]

report written by a pro eu mp, that has since been ripped to shreds and has no power

 

try again scottard......

So, to summarise, the official report from the Commons Select Committee, as written on the official parliament.uk website, and subsequently reported by The National verbatim, is as I said, in your mind "fake news" because it's not saying what you'd like it to say, despite it saying EXACTLY what is written on the parliament.uk website.

 

Despite - in your own words - "not being reported anywhere else because it's fake news", apparently this official report from the Commons Select Committee, as written on the official parliament.uk website, has been "ripped to shreds"? Where? It's the official report, it can't be ripped to shreds, it is exactly what it claims to be.

 

That's where we are now, correct?

[woody2]

 

report written by a pro eu mp, that has since been ripped to shreds and has no power

 

try again scottard......

 

scottard waffle

 

nope...

[fatshaft]

 

 

report written by a pro eu mp, that has since been ripped to shreds and has no power

 

try again scottard......

 

scottard waffle

 

You're correct fatshaft, I apologise for my earlier mistakes.

 

You're welcome, always happy to help the afflicted.

[P.K.]

wood-Tard

 

I'm convinced woody2 is just some stupid kid which is why I've had him/her/it on ignore for a while now.

 

Strange but true I don't seem to have missed their attempts at posting one little bit!

 

I suggest you do the same as it appears they are dragging you down with them....

[woody2]

 

 

 

report written by a pro eu mp, that has since been ripped to shreds and has no power

 

try again scottard......

 

scottard waffle

nope...

 

 

scottard waffle

nope...

[Lxxx]

 

 

For me, one of the most inexcusable near silences was that of Labour and Corbyn. When he did eventually speak up, Corbyn spoke with such obvious insincerity that his message outshone his lukewarm words. He did very little more than say that on balance, he supported remain. He urged no one to vote remain, he did nothing to point out the material benefits that the EU brings to economically disadvantaged areas. It was exactly those Labour voting areas that were key in swinging it in favour of 'leave'.

 

A more vigorous Labour campaign that focussed on getting the facts out would have made a difference,

But I thought the reasons for remaining were obvious, why did people need it pointing out to them by their leaders? If the material benefits need spelling out so graphically then it seems the whole premise for remaining isn't quite so clear cut.

Both sides of the argument needed to be cogently put. The exit side did so pursusivly, notwithstanding that much of what they said was untrue. The remain side was poor, and relied too much on negatives about leaving, and failed to get the benefits of membership across clearly. Corbin, effectively, bolstered leave whilst he mouthed support for remain.

 

 

But all we've heard since the vote are the negatives about leaving and nothing really about the benefits of membership. Seems to me like the argument for remaining is very flimsy if it's more focused on undermining the opposition argument than outlining the merits of it's own position.

[woody2]

 

woody2 is great

 

eurotard waffle

 

shows how wrong you are, but keep posting your mindless drivel......

[P.K.]

But all we've heard since the vote are the negatives about leaving and nothing really about the benefits of membership. Seems to me like the argument for remaining is very flimsy if it's more focused on undermining the opposition argument than outlining the merits of it's own position.

So which media outlets were you expecting to extol the virtues of staying in?

 

Not that it matters any more....

[RIchard Britten]

 

...nothing really about the benefits of membership.

 

We have been a member for decades, the benefits are there in black and white.

 

Where as the chaos of randomly diving in to the maelstrom and hoping for the best are just guess work and crossed fingers.

[woody2]

 

 

...nothing really about the benefits of membership.

 

We have been a member for decades, the benefits are there in black and white.

 

Where as the chaos of randomly diving in to the maelstrom and hoping for the best are just guess work and crossed fingers.

 

how come no one can state what these benefits are.....

[woody2]

But the report divided the cross-party committee, with some members saying it was too pessimistic about Brexit.

 

Some MPs walked out of a private meeting of the committee as the report was being finalised

 

.But they were outnumbered by Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP committee members, all of whom backed Remain in last year's referendum.

 

Mr Whittingdale said he thought the report was "unduly negative" and had "very much concentrated on the problems without really recognising the opportunities" of Brexit.

 

Mr Raab added: "The report was rushed, skewed and partisan. After two reports that had strong support, it's regrettable that this one split the committee.

"That undermines its credibility and influence, but I hope and expect the committee will learn the right lessons as we move forward."

 

facts...

[Lxxx]

 

But all we've heard since the vote are the negatives about leaving and nothing really about the benefits of membership. Seems to me like the argument for remaining is very flimsy if it's more focused on undermining the opposition argument than outlining the merits of it's own position.

So which media outlets were you expecting to extol the virtues of staying in?

 

Not that it matters any more....

 

 

It's less about the media outlets and more about the man on the street (or the net). Every man and his dog are now telling us we should be remaining in the EU but when pushed why they're so adamant they just keep outlining the perceived negatives and how thick the leavers must be to vote that way.

 

It's no wonder many who were on the fence voted to leave with such persuasive arguments.