I was speaking to DH about this last night. I couldn't understand why the Remain campaign didn't do a better job, really, and concentrated on London too much (London was never going to be "Leave" territory). I work in finance, and we repeatedly had politicians come in from both camps to debate why we should vote for either side. Everyone knows George Osbourne was at JP Morgan, alongside its CEO, telling employees that thousands of jobs would be at risk, if the UK voted leave.
I can't find one single account where they did anything similar with car manufacturers up north. They would be similarly affected. If we left the EU, their jobs would be at risk. The "Remain" campaign was too London-centric, too focused on white collar voters, when London was always going to be a clear win for "Remain". It made people in other regions think they wouldn't be affected. That they didn't count. Most people vote based on what they think will affect them. So you have to tell them as plainly as possible how leaving the EU may impact their lives. It's what some US politicians excel at whether you like them or not.
I thought that Cameron should have attacked BoJo's lies more. But then my DH pointed out they were both from the same party. There was no unity within the same party. And that's the problem. Had BoJo and Gove been from another party, I think Cameron would have not have held back. In some ways, attacking BoJo and Gove properly would also mean weakening your own party. So, it was a bit 'party over country' to be honest.
What do you think?