Indeed. We'd almost be better off starting off crap (on purpose) and give away an early goal (on purpose) thus leading the opposition into a false sense of security before kicking into gear and wooping their bottoms.
No one is disputing that it was a free vote. I'm simply stating that, unlike yourself, a percentage of people are open to persuasion and influence.
Not a huge revelation, granted, but observationally accurate nonetheless.
If the unions couldn't / didn't influence anyone's vote, why did they bother phoning their members "up to 37 times" to try and influence them? Bit of a waste of time if people are beyond influence....surely...?
You'll find that (most) Labour voters find it difficult to defend Labour in isolation. Every discussion around defending Labour policy invariably involves dragging the Tories into the equation. (or the 'ConDems' as they now like to humorously rattle off - ho ho)
It's a bit like the smoker who defends their habit by using negative comparisons: "Well, more people are killed crossing the road, innit..."
(some of the above was tongue-in-cheek and thus warrants a *winky face*)
Of course, you'll never catch the Tories doing the same in reverse....
Depends if one compares apples to apples or apples to oranges.
Some might argue that comparing win ratios in the third tier of English football (with some of the best resources and facilities in the dvision) with win ratios in the first and second tiers of English Football (where the resources and facilities were, comparably, on a less favourable footing) is not comparing like-for-like.
It is possible to say and mean something in one month but do something different in future months without undermining the original statement.
People's minds are changed by events and circumstances.
Just because Cortese genuinely believed in 'outcome 1' in August doesn't meen that he can't now believe in 'Outcome 2' if things have changed.
Not that I'm suggesting he has changed his mind. Just that it's a perfectly reasonable human trait if he has.