politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The referendum: The last two months’ polls provide two very

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The referendum: The last two months’ polls provide two very different pictures of what voters think

Trying to come to any conclusions from the referendum polling is difficult because there’s such a different pattern with the phone surveys painting a totally different picture of the race than the online ones.

Read the full story here

Richard_Tyndall

If the online/phone balance is in favour of phone = Remain am I right that that is better for Remain on past performance?

SquareRoot

The Golden rule used to be to believe ICM. Its now to ignore ALL pollsters till they prove their track record again. Until then its all hogwash.

RobD

Are these using the updated turnout models?

Moses_

Richard_Tyndall said:

If the online/phone balance is in favour of phone = Remain am I right that that is better for Remain on past performance?

Pollsters Pah! ........ I think we should just invade Belgium

HaroldO

Oh dear (although this may have been posted);
https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/661286386528624640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

RodCrosby

A treat for genealogists...

The 1939 Register, taken on the outbreak of WWII, was released today.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register

Since the 1931 and 1941 censuses are missing, this is a big deal...

rcs1000

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

HYUFD

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

AlastairMeeks

I hope we get a turnout market for the referendum sooner rather than later.

Moses_

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

HYUFD

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

There is no way the UK will ever join the eurozone or the EU ever be able to get the UK to join, latest polls have about 90% against. More likely is the UK joins Sweden, Denmark and a few Eastern European nations in a non Eurozone EU outer tier

perdix

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

That kind of outcome would provoke an insurrection. A vote to Remain does not imply no reservations about ties to the EU.

watford30

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

There is no way the UK will ever join the eurozone or the EU ever be able to get the UK to join, latest polls have about 90% against. More likely is the UK joins Sweden, Denmark and a few Eastern European nations in an EU outer core

The worst of all worlds then.

HYUFD

watford30 said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

There is no way the UK will ever join the eurozone or the EU ever be able to get the UK to join, latest polls have about 90% against. More likely is the UK joins Sweden, Denmark and a few Eastern European nations in an EU outer core

The worst of all worlds then.

In your opinion, in my view the best option

watford30

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

Fishing

"Trying to come to any conclusions from the referendum polling is difficult because there’s such a different pattern with the phone surveys painting a totally different picture of the race than the online ones. "

Well, also because pollsters have just had a disastrous failure. I mean, if one can't rely on them for general elections, in which they have plenty of experience, why should one rely on them for referenda, which are sui generis? I know we don't actually have much else to go on, but I wonder if the proverbial finger in the wind might rather be better.

rcs1000

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

foxinsoxuk

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

Scrapheap_as_was

Hoorar.... Spurs and cricket win double in a day.... how rare is that...

Natch the Mets couldn't make it but a great achievement this season anyway.

I'm going to consult with "ALL" my Arsenal friends on how they can help Spurs win at the weekend.

foxinsoxuk

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

Moses_

perdix said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

That kind of outcome would provoke an insurrection. A vote to Remain does not imply no reservations about ties to the EU.

Well let's hope our European friends realise the difference.

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

And they will be ignored.

Nothing short of a treaty will prevent a continuation of the EU project, no matter how much Osborne might trumpet his 5, frankly insignificant, demands.

MP_SE

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There is not anything wrong with quitting. Whether it be quitting a job to get rehired as a contractor, selling shares who have poor fundamentals or leaving the EU which has not lived up to expectations.

isam

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There's an important question posed by that post: what sort of turnout could we expect in the referendum? The AV referendum was low (40s?), whilst the Scottish Idependence referendum was well into the 80s. And how will it split amongst the different social grades?

I wonder if the vote hangs more on the date of there referendum than the question: will a referendum on a dark or dreary day, when people are less likely to turn out, favour one side or the other (i.e. the side that can get their voters out)? And if so, can that generally be discerned in advance?

Cyclefree

HaroldO said:

Oh dear (although this may have been posted);
https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/661286386528624640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

What possible consultation can there be? The clue is in the title. They are against any war where the UK or the US take action, are seen as "aggressors". The leader of the Labour Party is their chair.

So either they will follow that view. Or they will ignore it. Which will doubtless annoy a lot of the three quidders and other Corbynistas. My money is on the former.

SquareRoot

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

A shit of the first order, never gave a thought to the damage he caused other people but of course whines about his own mental problems. Few now take him seriously, what he said about the IRAQ war was highly questionable from the moment it left his mouth, that's not to say everything he ever said wasn't questionable, because it was.

foxinsoxuk

MP_SE said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There is not anything wrong with quitting. Whether it be quitting a job to get rehired as a contractor, selling shares who have poor fundamentals or leaving the EU which has not lived up to expectations.

I agree. Nothing wrong with quitting, but my point about differential turnout (or lack there of) remains.

JosiasJessop

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

Moses_

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

HaroldO

Cyclefree said:

HaroldO said:

Oh dear (although this may have been posted);
https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/661286386528624640?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

What possible consultation can there be? The clue is in the title. They are against any war where the UK or the US take action, are seen as "aggressors". The leader of the Labour Party is their chair.

So either they will follow that view. Or they will ignore it. Which will doubtless annoy a lot of the three quidders and other Corbynistas. My money is on the former.

It is a tiny group of people they are trying to appease there, rather odd direction to take if they want to represent the masses. Like asking the SWP for economic advice.

slade

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

rcs1000

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

And they will be ignored.

Nothing short of a treaty will prevent a continuation of the EU project, no mater how much Osborne might trumpet his 5, frankly insignificant, demands.

I was referring specifically to future treaty change.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There's an important question posed by that post: what sort of turnout could we expect in the referendum? The AV referendum was low (40s?), whilst the Scottish Idependence referendum was well into the 80s. And how will it split amongst the different social grades?

I wonder if the vote hangs more on the date of there referendum than the question: will a referendum on a dark or dreary day, when people are less likely to turn out, favour one side or the other (i.e. the side that can get their voters out)? And if so, can that generally be discerned in advance?

I suspect a turnout fairly similar to a GE, possibly a bit higher.

isam

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

Cyclefree

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

I think Chilcott will end up being a damp squib, much like the Hutton report on poor Dr Kelly.

Chilcott gives the impression of being the sort of person who would write nothing other than the most dreary bureaucratese, devoid of focus, insight or judgment, certainly nothing memorable or sharp.

And since there is no concept of shame in public life, Campbell, Blair et al will continue to be treated as pundits by those too lazy or too in thrall to former colleagues to find alternative views or others with a thoughtful perspective. Sadly.

rcs1000

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

Dair

In the previous thread there was a discussion about the dangers of rebooting a franchise.

I've just watched the first episode of Ash vs Evil Dead. It is absolutely, phenomenally, wonderfully, amazingly and totally GROOVY.

Gimme some sugar, baby.

HYUFD

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

runnymede

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany

...but the EU is nevertheless ploughing on with its project to create a European state, and it will continue to do so regardless of these things. Unless countries actually start to leave.

MTimT

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

I think Chilcott will end up being a damp squib, much like the Hutton report on poor Dr Kelly.

Chilcott gives the impression of being the sort of person who would write nothing other than the most dreary bureaucratese, devoid of focus, insight or judgment, certainly nothing memorable or sharp.

And since there is no concept of shame in public life, Campbell, Blair et al will continue to be treated as pundits by those too lazy or too in thrall to former colleagues to find alternative views or others with a thoughtful perspective. Sadly.

Do you have a view on David Kelly differing from the conclusions of the Hutton report? Genuine question

JosiasJessop

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

I'm sorry if you think I'm a pain in the arse: I suggest that I'm not the problem, but that you ought to see a proctologist as soon as possible.

Did you think I was a pain in the arse earlier in the previous thread, when I mentioned a link to you on a subject (not EU related) that I know you feel strongly about, and I thought you might find interesting?

Cyclefree

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

SquareRoot

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

You seem to getting a touch of the Antifranks.. Have you ever written a thread on PB? Antifrank has and since then his arrogance (and notwithstanding his undoubted betting acuity) now knows no bounds.

isam

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

I'm sorry if you think I'm a pain in the arse: I suggest that I'm not the problem, but that you ought to see a proctologist as soon as possible.

Did you think I was a pain in the arse earlier in the previous thread, when I mentioned a link to you on a subject (not EU related) that I know you feel strongly about, and I thought you might find interesting?

No, that was thoughtful of you, Im sorry if I didn't say thanks

But, my life! This other nonsense is insane!

Mortimer

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

rcs1000

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

It is worth remembering that future EU integration is increasingly unpopular outside the UK. The Hungarians stuck two fingers up at the Germans (and did it much more efficiently than SYRIZA). The PVV looks likely to be the largest party at the next Dutch elections. It is quite possible Italy will get a more Eurosceptic government next time around. In numerous European countries, Finland, Denmark, etc., more sceptical parties are now in government.

This doesn't mean that the EU "project" does not have its own bizarre momentum.

But the EU is nothing more than the countries that comprise it. And if the politicians in those countries see more electoral mileage in rolling back integration, then they will.

This is not to say that the preferred option is not "Out". Merely to point out that crossing the Channel does not immediately put you in a Europhilic paradise where people are desperate to abandon their countries and join a European superstate (and to drag along an unwilling UK with them).

MP_SE

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

Geert Wilders' party on nearly 40% is staggering.

rcs1000

MP_SE said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

Geert Wilders' party on nearly 40% is staggering.

It's not on 40%. It's on 40 seats out of 150. That's 28%.

rcs1000

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

If Zac wins the Mayor-dom, then the LibDems will win Richmond on a "Stop Heathrow Expansion" ticket.

isam

SquareRoot said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

You seem to getting a touch of the Antifranks.. Have you ever written a thread on PB? Antifrank has and since then his arrogance (and notwithstanding his undoubted betting acuity) now knows no bounds.

I did write one once, about Ed Miliband doing nothing and letting the Coalition make mistakes, and it in hindsight it was plain wrong!

"Cool Hand Ed" was the headline I believe.. plenty have been offered and rejected since

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

And they will be ignored.

Nothing short of a treaty will prevent a continuation of the EU project, no mater how much Osborne might trumpet his 5, frankly insignificant, demands.

I was referring specifically to future treaty change.

Unfortunately it may not be necessary to have treaty change to keep drawing us further into the web. Of course there will be future treaties but I suspect that there will also be a lot of effort, not least by the ECJ to extend the competencies of the EU without recourse to treaties. That is, after all, what they have been doing very successfully in recent years.

isam

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

If Zac wins the Mayor-dom, then the LibDems will win Richmond on a "Stop Heathrow Expansion" ticket.

Ladbrokes are betting on "Will the LDs win a by election this term?"

4/6 Yes
11/10 No

MP_SE

rcs1000 said:

MP_SE said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

Geert Wilders' party on nearly 40% is staggering.

It's not on 40%. It's on 40 seats out of 150. That's 28%.

Yes, you are correct. Electograph's website is sometimes a pain to decipher as sometimes it is seats and other times percentages.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There's an important question posed by that post: what sort of turnout could we expect in the referendum? The AV referendum was low (40s?), whilst the Scottish Idependence referendum was well into the 80s. And how will it split amongst the different social grades?

I wonder if the vote hangs more on the date of there referendum than the question: will a referendum on a dark or dreary day, when people are less likely to turn out, favour one side or the other (i.e. the side that can get their voters out)? And if so, can that generally be discerned in advance?

I suspect a turnout fairly similar to a GE, possibly a bit higher.

I think it will be lower. There will be (say) twenty percent on either side who have firm views and will vote whatever, and an awful lot of people who will have been utterly peeved at the months of rancorous arguments beforehand.

However, it would depend on the timing: if it was held on the same date as (say) local elections, then turnout would be higher, and lower if it was on a wet autumnal day.

Still, it won't be as low as the PCC elections ...

HYUFD

runnymede said:

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany

...but the EU is nevertheless ploughing on with its project to create a European state, and it will continue to do so regardless of these things. Unless countries actually start to leave.

The big shock will be 2017, I expect Marine Le Pen to top the poll in France, Geert Wilders to come first in the Netherlands, the Afd to win seats in the Bundestag and the UK to very nearly vote Out, it will send shockwaves across the continent!

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

But the EU is nothing more than the countries that comprise it. And if the politicians in those countries see more electoral mileage in rolling back integration, then they will.

Theoretically, that is correct. In practice, it is not. The Commission acts as a player in its own right and has a budget at its disposal.

JosiasJessop

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

@JosiasJessop on the other thread STILL banging on, refusing to accept that I wasn't talking about him

Please someone shut him up, and thanks to @Richard_Tyndall and @LucyJones for attempting to

You need to learn to read what you wrote.

Thanks for polluting this thread with it. It might be best if you'd kept it on the previous thread.

Still, all us 'undecideds' are the same to you, aren't we?

No, not all of them are as much of a pain in the arse as you

How bad must it be when people that are not in the conversation have to butt in and tell you you were wrong and to leave it?

I'm sorry if you think I'm a pain in the arse: I suggest that I'm not the problem, but that you ought to see a proctologist as soon as possible.

Did you think I was a pain in the arse earlier in the previous thread, when I mentioned a link to you on a subject (not EU related) that I know you feel strongly about, and I thought you might find interesting?

No, that was thoughtful of you, Im sorry if I didn't say thanks

But, my life! This other nonsense is insane!

Okay, let's call peace. We've both given our viewpoints, and it's not worth continuing to shout at each other.

Let's start refreshed in the morning.

foxinsoxuk

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

I think Chilcott will end up being a damp squib, much like the Hutton report on poor Dr Kelly.

Chilcott gives the immomentum.pression of being the sort of person who would write nothing other than the most dreary bureaucratese, devoid of focus, insight or judgment, certainly nothing memorable or sharp.

And since there is no concept of shame in public life, Campbell, Blair et al will continue to be treated as pundits by those too lazy or too in thrall to former colleagues to find alternative views or others with a thoughtful perspective. Sadly.

These long enquiries get so bogged down in detail so they lose all momentum. I suspect that you are right.

It will also be redundant as soon as it is published. There are very few who remember the war who have not already formed an opinion on it.

rcs1000

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

If Zac wins the Mayor-dom, then the LibDems will win Richmond on a "Stop Heathrow Expansion" ticket.

Ladbrokes are betting on "Will the LDs win a by election this term?"

4/6 Yes
11/10 No

Of course, it may be that Orkney & Shetland is their win this time

HYUFD

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

Mortimer

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

If Zac wins the Mayor-dom, then the LibDems will win Richmond on a "Stop Heathrow Expansion" ticket.

Can't see it to be honest. The constituency Tory party would simply select another anti-Heathrow-er, surely? And Zac would presumably do his damnedest to help that person win.

Cyclefree

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

I think Chilcott will end up being a damp squib, much like the Hutton report on poor Dr Kelly.

Chilcott gives the impression of being the sort of person who would write nothing other than the most dreary bureaucratese, devoid of focus, insight or judgment, certainly nothing memorable or sharp.

And since there is no concept of shame in public life, Campbell, Blair et al will continue to be treated as pundits by those too lazy or too in thrall to former colleagues to find alternative views or others with a thoughtful perspective. Sadly.

Do you have a view on David Kelly differing from the conclusions of the Hutton report? Genuine question

Not on the suicide. But I felt that the evidence which came out during the hearing was much more damning than how it was presented in the final report, particularly in relation to how the various parties involved treated Dr Kelly. There was a failure, IMO, of their duty of care to an employee, a lack of human decency in how they used him and put him in a difficult position. TBH that applied to the government but also the journalists and the select committee. Everyone was playing their games and pushing their agendas and Dr Kelly was caught up in it all, possibly also as a result of things he said or did, and so caught up were the rest of them in winning at all costs their battles against the BBC or the government or whoever, that they forgot that there were human beings in the centre of it all.

I felt that Lord Hutton was an old-fashioned judge who could not quite conceive that Ministers and the Prime Minister would behave in the sort of self-serving, unprincipled and ruthless way they did. I don't think he realised quite how willing Blair et al were to lie and dissemble if it served their purposes. As a result he gave them the benefit of the doubt more than they - or the evidence - deserved, IMO. It was as if he was operating in an analogue world while Blair, Campbell & Co were in the digital one.

runnymede

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

rcs1000

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

But the EU is nothing more than the countries that comprise it. And if the politicians in those countries see more electoral mileage in rolling back integration, then they will.

Theoretically, that is correct. In practice, it is not. The Commission acts as a player in its own right and has a budget at its disposal.

In the case of the ECJ, you are surely right.

Nevertheless, in two ways you are clearly wrong.

Firstly, while the Commission has the power to draft. Votes are between the representatives of countries. There is no Commission vote. They have no QMV vote. If the representatives of a substantial minority of countries see electoral mileage in blocking further integration (or even rolling it back), they can.

Secondly, the case of Hungary and the migrants shows the limits of the EU's power. The EU has no way to enforce decisions. If a country, even a small one, refuses to do the EU's bidding, there is literally nothing they can do about it.

Mortimer

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

rcs1000 said:

@Richard_Tyndall

I suspect that Outters are, in general, more politically engaged and more likely to be registered with YouGov. (I would point out that YouGov had - in their unweighted polls before the last election - by far the highest number of UKIP identifiers.) Therefore, I suspect that the phone polls are more accurate.

BUT

And it's a big but. I think Outters are simply much, much more likely to vote. The "In" vote is large, but very soft. It is, to use an analogy, like the Labour vote. Lots of people say "Yes, yes, I'm Labour/In (delete as appropriate)" but aren't actually very good at going down to the actual ballot box.

Therefore, I suspect an actual election today would produce results close to YouGov than to the phone pollsters. But, of course, the referendum is not tomorrow :-)

Quitters are more vocal, particularly on t'internet. Remainers are more middle class and more educated, therefore more likely to vote. I suspect that they will balance out.

Not that I believe polls, but JackW gave out his first rumblings from his EuroARSE yesterday, and that is the gold standard!

There's an important question posed by that post: what sort of turnout could we expect in the referendum? The AV referendum was low (40s?), whilst the Scottish Idependence referendum was well into the 80s. And how will it split amongst the different social grades?

I wonder if the vote hangs more on the date of there referendum than the question: will a referendum on a dark or dreary day, when people are less likely to turn out, favour one side or the other (i.e. the side that can get their voters out)? And if so, can that generally be discerned in advance?

I suspect a turnout fairly similar to a GE, possibly a bit higher.

I think it will be lower. There will be (say) twenty percent on either side who have firm views and will vote whatever, and an awful lot of people who will have been utterly peeved at the months of rancorous arguments beforehand.

However, it would depend on the timing: if it was held on the same date as (say) local elections, then turnout would be higher, and lower if it was on a wet autumnal day.

Still, it won't be as low as the PCC elections ...

It will get a higher turnout than either the AV referendum or the Euro-elections, both of which are voting enthusiasts only affairs. Probably not as high as the indyref though. I reckon 60-70%, likely to be in the top half of that range.

It would be a worthwhile market if Shadsy or tissueprice are reading; albeit a little contingent on exact date.

Cyclefree

Mortimer said:

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

What it always is. Power.

Danny565

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

slade said:

The Lib Dems have selected Jane Brophy to fight the Oldham West by-election. She is a councillor in Trafford and works in the NHS.

And she is going to lose her deposit.

A market on first LD by election win would be fun.

I'd be a Buyer of 2025+ I reckon......

Montgomeryshire looks to me like the only halfway-feasible chance of a LibDem by-election gain this Parliament - the only seat which is good territory for them, and where there's a reasonable chance of the incumbent becoming....incapacitated.

Richmond Park does not strike me as great Farron territory.

Dair

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

MTimT

Mortimer said:

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

Cushy job for life. A pension to die for. Power.

Need anything else?

Cyclefree

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

If the vote is to Remain there won't be any concessions. And the Quebecois are Frenchmen, ready to make a nuisance of themselves, hence the concessions.

We'd get on much better in the EU if we behaved more like the French: shamelessly doing whatever's needed to get the best for Britain while talking as if all we care about is the EU and ignoring the bits of it we don't like, either full frontally or more usually by dragging our feet interminably.

Mortimer

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Unionists won. Get over it.

SandyRentool

MTimT said:

Mortimer said:

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

Cushy job for life. A pension to die for. Power.

Need anything else?

Nick Clegg went off to Brussels and came back with Mrs Clegg!

HYUFD

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

JosiasJessop

Cyclefree said:

Not on the suicide. But I felt that the evidence which came out during the hearing was much more damning than how it was presented in the final report, particularly in relation to how the various parties involved treated Dr Kelly. There was a failure, IMO, of their duty of care to an employee, a lack of human decency in how they used him and put him in a difficult position. TBH that applied to the government but also the journalists and the select committee. Everyone was playing their games and pushing their agendas and Dr Kelly was caught up in it all, possibly also as a result of things he said or did, and so caught up were the rest of them in winning at all costs their battles against the BBC or the government or whoever, that they forgot that there were human beings in the centre of it all.

I felt that Lord Hutton was an old-fashioned judge who could not quite conceive that Ministers and the Prime Minister would behave in the sort of self-serving, unprincipled and ruthless way they did. I don't think he realised quite how willing Blair et al were to lie and dissemble if it served their purposes. As a result he gave them the benefit of the doubt more than they - or the evidence - deserved, IMO. It was as if he was operating in an analogue world while Blair, Campbell & Co were in the digital one.

My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.

If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.

People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.

(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).

Mortimer

MTimT said:

Mortimer said:

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

Cushy job for life. A pension to die for. Power.

Need anything else?

Good points. You'd think the continued failure of various branches of the project would lead to more caution instead of stepping on the gas, though.

HYUFD

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

HYUFD said:

It could be even closer than indyref but I think Remain will win

Perhaps.... But if that is the outcome then the EU will, probably quite rightly, demand that the UK integrate very quickly. The first casualties will be Schengen but more importantly sterling. This is not a scare but just pointing out the likely reaction from across the channel. That will be just the start.

If it's 51:49 to Remain, then surely any British government will say "I'm sorry, but it was close enough to get Remain last time. There is clearly no mandate from the British people for any closer union."

In normal circumstances I would perhaps agree. We are not talking normal circumstances as we have seen in the past. I suspect they will say even if there is one single vote separation in favour of remain they will claim the vote was in favour of closer union so just get on with it.

For goodness sake Marine Le Pen leads the polls in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, the Afd is on the rise in Germany, the main European powers have enough problems keeping their own populations from revolting without adding the British as well

The irony would be that if GB votes to remain it will be (I think I'm right on this) the only country in the EU to have voted twice to stay in the EU, which ought to make it the most communautaire of the lot.

But somehow this is one of those cases where - much like a relationship on the rocks - the more you have to say you love the other person, the closer to the end it is in reality.

Well exactly, though Quebec's example shows once a second referendum is held the matter can be settle if some concessions are made

If the vote is to Remain there won't be any concessions. And the Quebecois are Frenchmen, ready to make a nuisance of themselves, hence the concessions.

We'd get on much better in the EU if we behaved more like the French: shamelessly doing whatever's needed to get the best for Britain while talking as if all we care about is the EU and ignoring the bits of it we don't like, either full frontally or more usually by dragging our feet interminably.

The French are good at protecting their national interest that is true

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

But the EU is nothing more than the countries that comprise it. And if the politicians in those countries see more electoral mileage in rolling back integration, then they will.

Theoretically, that is correct. In practice, it is not. The Commission acts as a player in its own right and has a budget at its disposal.

In the case of the ECJ, you are surely right.

Nevertheless, in two ways you are clearly wrong.

Firstly, while the Commission has the power to draft. Votes are between the representatives of countries. There is no Commission vote. They have no QMV vote. If the representatives of a substantial minority of countries see electoral mileage in blocking further integration (or even rolling it back), they can.

Secondly, the case of Hungary and the migrants shows the limits of the EU's power. The EU has no way to enforce decisions. If a country, even a small one, refuses to do the EU's bidding, there is literally nothing they can do about it.

I agree that there are limits to the EC's powers to act. But they have far more actual power than their mandated power. They do have the right to initiative, which often sets the framework of discussion, frequently to the UK's disadvantage as it casts our position outside of the frame and hence extreme, putting the onus on the UK to shift the whole frame. And EU directives are drafted by the EC, again allowing them to set the frame for the discussion and to play politics with the draft to ensure that a winning coalition is in place before the draft reaches the Council.

Power is not just what is in the mandate, it is also resides in those who know the rules of the institution better than anyone else. Ministers, diplomats and national civil servants come and go, but the EC remains and so has an information advantage in that regard.

MTimT

SandyRentool said:

MTimT said:

Mortimer said:

runnymede said:

...and we have already seen how elected governments that don't toe the line get thrown out of office and replaced by 'technocrats' (Italy) or forced to alter course (Greece). In Portugal we even have an attempt to sidestep the result of an election entirely.

Unless you have first hand experience of dealing with Eurocrats and their fellow travellers in national politics and business in our European neighbours you cannot truly conceive of how fanatical their committment to this project is and the extents they will go to, to further it. All this very English musing on this thread about 'surely this' and 'surely that' is hopelessly off beam.

Other than a job for life, what is in it for the committed eurocrats?

Cushy job for life. A pension to die for. Power.

Need anything else?

Nick Clegg went off to Brussels and came back with Mrs Clegg!

MTimT

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

I think Chilcott will end up being a damp squib, much like the Hutton report on poor Dr Kelly.

Chilcott gives the impression of being the sort of person who would write nothing other than the most dreary bureaucratese, devoid of focus, insight or judgment, certainly nothing memorable or sharp.

And since there is no concept of shame in public life, Campbell, Blair et al will continue to be treated as pundits by those too lazy or too in thrall to former colleagues to find alternative views or others with a thoughtful perspective. Sadly.

Do you have a view on David Kelly differing from the conclusions of the Hutton report? Genuine question

Not on the suicide. But I felt that the evidence which came out during the hearing was much more damning than how it was presented in the final report, particularly in relation to how the various parties involved treated Dr Kelly. There was a failure, IMO, of their duty of care to an employee, a lack of human decency in how they used him and put him in a difficult position. TBH that applied to the government but also the journalists and the select committee. Everyone was playing their games and pushing their agendas and Dr Kelly was caught up in it all, possibly also as a result of things he said or did, and so caught up were the rest of them in winning at all costs their battles against the BBC or the government or whoever, that they forgot that there were human beings in the centre of it all.

I felt that Lord Hutton was an old-fashioned judge who could not quite conceive that Ministers and the Prime Minister would behave in the sort of self-serving, unprincipled and ruthless way they did. I don't think he realised quite how willing Blair et al were to lie and dissemble if it served their purposes. As a result he gave them the benefit of the doubt more than they - or the evidence - deserved, IMO. It was as if he was operating in an analogue world while Blair, Campbell & Co were in the digital one.

I knew and worked with David. A close friend gave testimony. I am glad that you came to the conclusions you have. I think your views on behaviour of the Beeb and the politicians are spot on. David can't escape all responsibility, either. He said and did what he said and did. But he clearly ended up under a lot of pressure from those trying to get a story, from those trying to deny the story and from those seeking a scapegoat.

Cyclefree

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

I felt that Lord Hutton was an old-fashioned judge who could not quite conceive that Ministers and the Prime Minister would behave in the sort of self-serving, unprincipled and ruthless way they did. I don't think he realised quite how willing Blair et al were to lie and dissemble if it served their purposes. As a result he gave them the benefit of the doubt more than they - or the evidence - deserved, IMO. It was as if he was operating in an analogue world while Blair, Campbell & Co were in the digital one.

My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.

If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.

People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.

(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).

Yes, I think that is a fair assessment. Also, he was worried about losing his pension and the position it would leave his wife in. He may have been a loner but was probably a man of a generation who maybe found it difficult to confide in others about what was going on and get sensible advice to help him.

And I think the politicians involved were so determined on saving their own skin - remember the look on Blair's face when he came off that plane in Japan and was asked by a journalist whether he had "blood on his hands" (after Dr Kelly's death was announced) - that any thought of playing fair by him would have gone straight out of the window. Senior civil servants will have been focused only on saving their Ministers. And then to be called "chaff" in such a dismissive way by hostile Labour MPs must have been humiliating and unbearable for a man who was an expert and had worked hard in a difficult field all his life.

HurstLlama

SquareRoot said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

Alistair Campbell on ITN, as part of a mental health campaign.

It's a pity he wasn't so bothered about the state of Dr Kelly's mind when he was tipped over the edge.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

A shit of the first order, never gave a thought to the damage he caused other people but of course whines about his own mental problems. Few now take him seriously, what he said about the IRAQ war was highly questionable from the moment it left his mouth, that's not to say everything he ever said wasn't questionable, because it was.

Political discourse in this country would be far better had Kinnock left Alistair Campbell in the gutter where, quite literally, he found him.

MTimT

JosiasJessop said:

My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.

If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.

People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.

(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).

There is a big difference between a 'subject matter expert' talking head on TV and radio, and being put in the spotlight to give evidence. In the former, your points are taken almost as gospel, and you are treated with a great deal of respect, even when your opinions are being questioned. This is nothing like a hostile interrogation in front of the cameras.

I have done a lot of the former, and thoroughly enjoy it. I have done Hard Talk once (it became clear only once I was on air that the interviewer wanted me to admit that UNSCOM was a den of CIA spies) and been a witness subject to cross examination once. Neither was enjoyable.

Dair

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Cyclefree

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

watford30 said:

.

The end of Campbell as a media pundit will be a very welcome outcome of Chilcott.

.

Do you have a view on David Kelly differing from the conclusions of the Hutton report? Genuine question

Not on the suicide. But I felt that the evidence which came out during the hearing was much more damning than how it was presented in the final report, particularly in relation to how the various parties involved treated Dr Kelly. There was a failure, IMO, of their duty of care to an employee, a lack of human decency in how they used him and put him in a difficult position. TBH that applied to the government but also the journalists and the select committee. Everyone was playing their games and pushing their agendas and Dr Kelly was caught up in it all, possibly also as a result of things he said or did, and so caught up were the rest of them in winning at all costs their battles against the BBC or the government or whoever, that they forgot that there were human beings in the centre of it all.

I felt that Lord Hutton was an old-fashioned judge who could not quite conceive that Ministers and the Prime Minister would behave in the sort of self-serving, unprincipled and ruthless way they did. I don't think he realised quite how willing Blair et al were to lie and dissemble if it served their purposes. As a result he gave them the benefit of the doubt more than they - or the evidence - deserved, IMO. It was as if he was operating in an analogue world while Blair, Campbell & Co were in the digital one.

I knew and worked with David. A close friend gave testimony. I am glad that you came to the conclusions you have. I think your views on behaviour of the Beeb and the politicians are spot on. David can't escape all responsibility, either. He said and did what he said and did. But he clearly ended up under a lot of pressure from those trying to get a story, from those trying to deny the story and from those seeking a scapegoat.

I did wonder why you were asking.

Really, given your far far greater knowledge you should be commenting not me.

I did feel that this episode - almost more than the lead up to the war - showed Blair and his acolytes at their absolute worst. Politics as a game only - with no regard for those real long-term and generally honourable public servants - caught up in it, chewed up and spat out. Lots of reputations were ruined but only one died.

And then, to cap it all, we had the revoltingly insensitive vulgarity of Cherie Blair signing a copy of the Hutton report to auction it to raise funds for the party.

Mortimer

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.

Oh, and OIL!!!!

Luckyguy1983

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Some people vote for the SNP because they want independence. Some vote for the SNP because they want the SNP. Two entirely different propositions. One a winning one, one not. To lack the desire to leave a conglomerate, but to desire to be represented within that conglomerate in the most pugnacious and energetic way possible is not some freak minority perversion, it is pretty much what we'd all like.

MTimT

Cyclefree said:

I did wonder why you were asking.

Really, given your far far greater knowledge you should be commenting not me.

I did feel that this episode - almost more than the lead up to the war - showed Blair and his acolytes at their absolute worst. Politics as a game only - with no regard for those real long-term and generally honourable public servants - caught up in it, chewed up and spat out. Lots of reputations were ruined but only one died.

And then, to cap it all, we had the revoltingly insensitive vulgarity of Cherie Blair signing a copy of the Hutton report to auction it to raise funds for the party.

I asked because you consistently in your posts demonstrate an understanding and empathy for human behaviour that is not the strongest point for the majority of politics wonks that post on this blog. I wanted your take. Thanks.

Cyclefree

MTimT said:

JosiasJessop said:

My view at the time was that the politicians and media did not understand what 'normal' people can be like. I fear public speaking (one of the many reasons I could never be a politician), and would absolutely hate to be put in the position Kelly was, being interviewed by hostile MPs on camera.

If I'd been subjected to that, and the vilification he received from some of the press (if I remember correctly), then it might break me. I'd hate the experience.

People in the media and politicians are used to giving, and answering questions, often on camera. For them it would have been normal. For the rest of us, it could be very upsetting.

(Arguing with the above slightly, I think Kelly was used to giving evidence in committees and talking to the media occasionally, just off camera. But he was under the spotlight as a hostile witness at the select committee hearings. ISTR that a couple of Labour MPs were particularly harsh).

There is a big difference between a 'subject matter expert' talking head on TV and radio, and being put in the spotlight to give evidence. In the former, your points are taken almost as gospel, and you are treated with a great deal of respect, even when your opinions are being questioned. This is nothing like a hostile interrogation in front of the cameras.

I have done a lot of the former, and thoroughly enjoy it. I have done Hard Talk once (it became clear only once I was on air that the interviewer wanted me to admit that UNSCOM was a den of CIA spies) and been a witness subject to cross examination once. Neither was enjoyable.

Being a witness in court is a very nerve wracking experience. Being asked questions by a lawyer, even outside the courtroom, is pretty frightening for most people however lovely the lady lawyer (for it is I) may be. Questioning is not the normal way most people talk to each other and is inherently aggressive, however gently it may be done.

Lawyers are apt to forget this and it is good sometimes to be on the other side, as I was recently when I had to be questioned as a potential witness in a recent high profile trial after an overnight flight from the US and on ca. 3 hours sleep! I spent most of the flight watching Suite Francaise, which was perhaps not the most sensible preparation for interrogation by the SFO!!

Cyclefree

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

I did wonder why you were asking.

Really, given your far far greater knowledge you should be commenting not me.

I did feel that this episode - almost more than the lead up to the war - showed Blair and his acolytes at their absolute worst. Politics as a game only - with no regard for those real long-term and generally honourable public servants - caught up in it, chewed up and spat out. Lots of reputations were ruined but only one died.

And then, to cap it all, we had the revoltingly insensitive vulgarity of Cherie Blair signing a copy of the Hutton report to auction it to raise funds for the party.

I asked because you consistently in your posts demonstrate an understanding and empathy for human behaviour that is not the strongest point for the majority of politics wonks that post on this blog. I wanted your take. Thanks.

What a lovely thing to say. Thank you.

Mortimer

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Some people vote for the SNP because they want independence. Some vote for the SNP because they want the SNP. Two entirely different propositions. One a winning one, one not. To lack the desire to leave a conglomerate, but to desire to be represented within that conglomerate in the most pugnacious and energetic way possible is not some freak minority perversion, it is pretty much what we'd all like.

Indeed.

Incidentally, I wonder if part of this mentality sums up the reasoning behind so many 2010 non-Tory voters switching to Cons in marginals in 2015. They liked what the coalition was saying, but couldn't stand the continual fudging that LD involvement was causing. Hence, electoral destruction for LDs was the result.

HurstLlama

Mortimer said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.

Oh, and OIL!!!!

No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.

Mortimer

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.

Oh, and OIL!!!!

No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.

;-)

Richard_Nabavi

FPT (addressed to me):

Richard_Tyndall said:

Your stunning and willful ignorance of the workings of the EEA and EU make your utterly unfit to even comment on what Eurosceptics might say. you deserve to be treated with nothing but derision.

LOL! Talk about winning friends and influencing people.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very happy to discuss the EEA and EU with anyone sensible, but not with people like Richard.

AndyJS

"George Osborne: EU must give Britain protections from 'ever-closer union'

George Osborne, the Chancellor, flies to Germany and says that the European Union must not 'damage' British interests"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11971169/George-Osborne-EU-must-give-Britain-protections-from-ever-closer-union.html

Luckyguy1983

Mortimer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Some people vote for the SNP because they want independence. Some vote for the SNP because they want the SNP. Two entirely different propositions. One a winning one, one not. To lack the desire to leave a conglomerate, but to desire to be represented within that conglomerate in the most pugnacious and energetic way possible is not some freak minority perversion, it is pretty much what we'd all like.

Indeed.

Incidentally, I wonder if part of this mentality sums up the reasoning behind so many 2010 non-Tory voters switching to Cons in marginals in 2015. They liked what the coalition was saying, but couldn't stand the continual fudging that LD involvement was causing. Hence, electoral destruction for LDs was the result.

It's certainly the reason that UKIP won the euros. And under this theory I suppose the SNP would face challenges in Holyrood more quickly than they will in Westminster. But not from centralised UK parties, from new challengers with a Scotland or even a regional focus.

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

FPT (addressed to me):

Richard_Tyndall said:

Your stunning and willful ignorance of the workings of the EEA and EU make your utterly unfit to even comment on what Eurosceptics might say. you deserve to be treated with nothing but derision.

LOL! Talk about winning friends and influencing people.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very happy to discuss the EEA and EU with anyone sensible, but not with people like Richard.

We know how you hate having to face facts and having your opponents use actual documentary evidence rather than just your wild ill informed theorising .

So it is no surprise you are unwilling to discuss these matters with someone who actually knows what they are talking about and shows how ignorant you are.

Tim_B

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Presumably any party advocating calls for another referendum would be happy to pay for it, then? I would not be happy for it to come out of taxpayers money after the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.

Oh, and OIL!!!!

No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.

You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).

A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk

Mortimer

Tim_B said:

HurstLlama said:

Mortimer said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

You really do love reaching for non-sequitor conclusions.

Loyalists were bleating this nonsense about the First Indyref. Just accept it, until Scotland is Independent its people will seek to become Independent.

Tick Tock.

Clearly not, the second referendum kills the issue pretty much for good. Of course on your logic it is equally possible anyway Unionists could campaign to restore the Union as soon as an independent Scotland were declared

Utter nonsense. The single example of utter political failure of PQ and BQ is not a pattern. It is just one failure to do what it was supposed to do and as such losing its credibility. It stopped being a mechanism for Independence so it lost its support.

The loss of referenda did not cause this. The failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 caused it. There is absolutely nothing stopping the people of Scotland voting for a third referendum if a second one is lost (which is, of course, a pretty big if).

The only way that Independence can be slowed is by persuading the SNP not to hold a referendum before 2020 and subsequently, rapid loss of support. Unlike Quebec, there is no FPTP system to block a new party from rapidly filling the void if the SNP loses credibility as a vehicle for Independence.

Sadly for Loyalist their adherence to the undemocratic monarchy system of the United Kingdom makes them blind to the reality of democracy.

Democracy is not a "one and done" system, it is a system where regular referral to the people is not only desired but required.

Presumably any party advo... the people have said they're not interested in a once in a generation vote.

Oh, and OIL!!!!

No, no, and thrice no, Mr. Mortimer! You are coming this from quite the wrong angle. The English should be encouraging the Scots to have another referendum as soon as possible and if they don't get the result right on that one either then another soon after. Frankly I should like to see them forced to vote on the subject at least once a year until they finally do the decent thing and vote to leave. If funding that means another penny on the income tax then that is fine by me.

You should be warned that my wife, born and raised in Scotland, has threatened to take the saltire off the front license plate of her SUV if Scotland votes for independence (in Georgia you only have a rear license plate).

A sword of Damocles such as that ought to tamp down any further referendum talk

Quite. If only everyone was so civic minded, Dair and Malc would mind their loose talk.