Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As doctors stage their 3rd strike Ipsos-MORI finds that th

12346»

Comments

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    SeanT said:

    Stop being a boring arse. Of course we're not expecting Cameron to come up with a ten point plan for the UK's constitutional future over the next decade, he just needs to tell us how he'd stop all the immediate horrors which he himself has threatened: the jungle coming to Kent, the collapse in Sterling, the immediate disinvestment, banks fleeing to Paris, giant dogs eating small weans, etc. He must have a plan to prevent this, given that LEAVE is highly possible.

    He's the fecking PM, for Christ's sake. It's his JOB.

    Well, it won't be his job then. That is one thing we both agree on.

    It really isn't in Leave's interests to point out the complete incoherence of their howls against 21st century complexities. It does rather invite the comment: "what, you have no idea what you're campaigning for?"

    In practice what do I think would happen? On day one, the Prime Minister will make a bland statement about respecting the result, preparing to trigger Article 50 as promised and then seeking to establish the authority to enter into negotiations with the EU about the terms of our departure. My guess is that he would take the opportunity to announce his departure and his continuance in the role on a caretaker-only basis pending election of a new Conservative leader who would have the authority to undertake that negotiation.

    And once selected, I expect the new Conservative leader will fairly shortly afterwards seek a mandate from the public for the negotiating stance on which he or she has no doubt won the party nod.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    The Times

    The Queen opposed to Brexit as it could lead to the break up of the U.K.

    Hope Sturgeon sees that a deal should be negotiated with Leave, vote with us and you'll get independence under Brexit, everyone's a winner.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,741
    Pulpstar said:

    Incidentally, looking at Rubio's path to the nomination: what it requires is a major uptick on the East coast: New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey.

    Expectations in CA, FL, etc. are already priced in.

    Hmm not sure about that. Betfair will wildly overreact if he wins Florida.
    "Priced in" might not have been apt... what I mean is, they were always part of his route to the nomination. He needs to add New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey where he wasn't expected to do well.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    glw said:

    Both of you are missing the point that the plan has to respect the referendum vote. Until we have some sense of what a vote to Leave means, a plan cannot be drawn up.

    Do you really think that there has been no contingency planning? The BoE has already stated that it has plans for the period around the referendum. If the government hasn't been planning for the various possible outcomes it isn't doing its job.
    I'm not sure that the Government has been doing any planning, but I sure as hell hope that there are some civil servants wargaming tne possibility.

    In any event, in the event of a Leave vote (shudder) Cameron would be in the position of a PM who has recommended a particular course of action to the country and had that advice rejected. Surely no honourable man could stay in office after such an event.

    As SeanT says, in the event of a Leave vote, watch him squirm.
    His position would be untenable. He'll just resign.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited March 2016
    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    So you vote Leave and when the economic warnings prove to be true , you will blame the new "free self determining" government rather than putting a revolver to your head and getting rid of one of those who voted to harm the economy of the country .
  • I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,897

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    Who leaked the Sun story?

    There were present: the Rt. Hon. Nicholas Clegg MP (Lord President), the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP (Secretary of State, Department for Education), the Rt. Hon. Cheryl Gillan MP (Secretary of State for Wales) and the Lord McNally (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice).

    Might that have been followed by lunch? If you can spot any anti-EU highly reliable senior sources in there, you win today's "Elementary, my dear Watson" Sherlock Holmes prize.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catch-up-who-could-have-told-the-sun-the-queen-backed-brexit-a6920601.html


    I think Gove is in deep trouble if he proves to be the source of the leak, either directly or indirectly. I seriously doubt he has leaked directly but it is feasible that he has said something to somebody that has.
    Like the PM was in deep trouble when he bragged about HMQ 'purring on the line' to an American?
    Chalk & Cheese. The cameron incident barely raised a political ripple, the Sun article has landed the Monarchy right in the deep doo doo
    You seem to think everyone is in deep something, but haven't shown how.
    Well I guess going straight to the PPC is an indication of potentially how damaging the article is being viewed at Buck House. You seriously don't think it would be a problem for the Queen if she was taking sides in the EU referendum?
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    SeanT said:

    Deafbloke said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    In that case, Mr Cameron needs to outline exactly what his plans for Brexit are, seeing as he is going to be the one implementing it.
    It's quite adventurous for Leavers, having demonstrated that they are utterly clueless about what Leave might mean, to demand that the Prime Minister solve their problem for them.
    It's a perfectly fair point. If Cameron is determined to stay on as PM after a LEAVE vote (of course we all know he's lying, and why) then he must surely have a plan for handling the fall-out, and preventing the catastrophe he keeps saying will occur. To do anything else would be a total dereliction of duty.

    What is his plan for Brexit? How will he prevent a collapse in sterling? Does he have a clue? He is the PM after all. It carries certain responsibilities. Maybe his intention is to stay in Number 10 just so he can laugh at the voters and say Told You So when Ebola ravages the nation from Swindon to St Ives.
    How on earth could the government draw up a plan for Leave when Leave itself doesn't know whether it's campaigning to Leave to pull up the drawbridge against immigrants or simply to move to an EFTA-style arrangement (or something else entirely)? The only sensible thing that the government could do would be to steady the ship in the very short term by taking such market actions as were required to prevent complete meltdown and agree to take stock of what the government had been mandated to do.
    We have a plan for the eventuality that America invades us. Why would we not have a plan for the far likelier and more imminent outcome of leaving the EU, even if there were three or four scenarios?
    Indeed. It wouldn't be too hard to make one scenario for the EEA option and one for an FTA option. But Cameron won't do it because it will weaken his argument for the EU. He puts EU membership before the wellbeing of the UK. He is worse than Heath.
    Absurd comments.
    In any event even Leave do not have any plans for leaving, they cannot agree where to leave to.
    Furthermore - does anyone in the EU have any plans either? Why should the pace or nature of any negotiations be one sided?
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,243
    " Like others, I expect a general election before the end of the year if there's a Leave vote, so that the government can establish a mandate for negotiating on a particular basis"

    Ony problem there is if Labour get rid of Bungalow Bill Corbyn in the interim and win the election we could have the prospect of a pro EU Labour gov negotiating an EU withdrawal - seems perverse to me so I can't see a GE arising
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    So you vote Leave and when the economic warnings prove to be true , you will blame the new "free self determining" government rather than putting a revolver to your head and getting rid of one of those who voted to harm the economy of the country .
    Part of the point of leaving is that nationally elected politicians can have responsibilities and be held accountable for them. Given the mess in the Eurozone, claim integration improves economies is very weak.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    @MarkSenior @ 1:32pm. I think that comment crosses the line.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,851

    SeanT said:

    Stop being a boring arse. Of course we're not expecting Cameron to come up with a ten point plan for the UK's constitutional future over the next decade, he just needs to tell us how he'd stop all the immediate horrors which he himself has threatened: the jungle coming to Kent, the collapse in Sterling, the immediate disinvestment, banks fleeing to Paris, giant dogs eating small weans, etc. He must have a plan to prevent this, given that LEAVE is highly possible.

    He's the fecking PM, for Christ's sake. It's his JOB.

    Well, it won't be his job then. That is one thing we both agree on.

    It really isn't in Leave's interests to point out the complete incoherence of their howls against 21st century complexities. It does rather invite the comment: "what, you have no idea what you're campaigning for?"

    In practice what do I think would happen? On day one, the Prime Minister will make a bland statement about respecting the result, preparing to trigger Article 50 as promised and then seeking to establish the authority to enter into negotiations with the EU about the terms of our departure. My guess is that he would take the opportunity to announce his departure and his continuance in the role on a caretaker-only basis pending election of a new Conservative leader who would have the authority to undertake that negotiation.

    And once selected, I expect the new Conservative leader will fairly shortly afterwards seek a mandate from the public for the negotiating stance on which he or she has no doubt won the party nod.
    Per other comments down thread, I seem to be the only one who believes that Labour would allow an early GE vs Cameron in the event of Leave - do you see the dynamic as different if Cameron has gone? It's not clear how the new leader could seek a mandate if Labour was running scared of a GE.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,669
    SeanT said:

    Polruan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.
    There is no earthly way that David Cameron will stay Prime Minister for any length of time after a Leave vote. How on earth could he negotiate leaving terms? His credibility would be zero and he in any case would presumably have not the slightest appetite for the task.
    He likes winning (as an end, rather than a means) and would hate to depart as a loser. So he'd try to call a quick GE justified by the need to seek a mandate for the negotiation, which he'd believe he could win. Of course it might not be his choice, but if he moved quickly enough the party would have no choice to line up behind him, with his opponents being smeared Crosby-style as putting the economy at risk in this time of crisis, and allowing the apocalyptic risk of terrorist-sympathiser Corbyn/evil baby-eating Scots (etc) to run the country by destabilising the GE campaign with a leadership contest. And, tbf, you'd assume he'd increase the majority then stand down "triumphant" a year later.
    Fixed Terms. He can't call a GE.

    Of course he would resign after a LEAVE vote, just as he would have resigned after a Scottish YES.

    He'd be the prime minister whose deal was so shit the country told him to stuff it, despite Cameron warning us that if we vote LEAVE there'll be plagues of toads and boils. On top of that he's already told us he's going, so what would be the point in his clinging to office, just to be mocked, jeered and ridiculed, and hated by all the europhiles?

    The idea he could stay on is comical. He'd quit within weeks.
    To all intents and purposes, he can call a GE. It requires a simple majority to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and there would be no problems in the Commons, and it could be rushed through the Lords twice in 48 hours if need be.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,297

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 · 6m6 minutes ago
    Surely Her Majesty would prefer to be Head of State of an independent UK, rather than a province of Brussels? #buckinghampalace #Brexit

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,320
    edited March 2016

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    Scotland won't leave if we vote to Leave. The GERS figures from today confirm that. The EU is not going to plug Scotland's £15bn hole like we do.

    In fact within the EU Scotland would be forced to abide by the 3% deficit rule. We basically just ignore it since we are in the EMU and will never be in it they don't kick up a fuss. Smaller nations who have tried to ignore it have never done well. Scotland would be forced to endure 3-5 years of eyewatering austerity to balance the budget.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Anne Marie Cunningham
    Could anyone make sense of a letter like this? Something is wrong with some NHS process somewhere https://t.co/OQXzl2PjQn

    It is to do with govt targets for the 18 week referral to treatment. There needs to be a date logged in a ghost clinic, while getting additional information to know which clinic is best for the patient.

    Simply booking an appointment in a clinic where the patient is not seen by the right person is not helpful. Such referral management systems are a way to shorten waits, not conceal them!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    Ex LD MP Paul Keetch made a very good case for Leave. Worth googling

    If you're in favour of local power, how is the EU helping your cause?

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    So you vote Leave and when the economic warnings prove to be true , you will blame the new "free self determining" government rather than putting a revolver to your head and getting rid of one of those who voted to harm the economy of the country .
    Part of the point of leaving is that nationally elected politicians can have responsibilities and be held accountable for them. Given the mess in the Eurozone, claim integration improves economies is very weak.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    Polruan said:

    SeanT said:

    Stop being a boring arse. Of course we're not expecting Cameron to come up with a ten point plan for the UK's constitutional future over the next decade, he just needs to tell us how he'd stop all the immediate horrors which he himself has threatened: the jungle coming to Kent, the collapse in Sterling, the immediate disinvestment, banks fleeing to Paris, giant dogs eating small weans, etc. He must have a plan to prevent this, given that LEAVE is highly possible.

    He's the fecking PM, for Christ's sake. It's his JOB.

    Well, it won't be his job then. That is one thing we both agree on.

    It really isn't in Leave's interests to point out the complete incoherence of their howls against 21st century complexities. It does rather invite the comment: "what, you have no idea what you're campaigning for?"

    In practice what do I think would happen? On day one, the Prime Minister will make a bland statement about respecting the result, preparing to trigger Article 50 as promised and then seeking to establish the authority to enter into negotiations with the EU about the terms of our departure. My guess is that he would take the opportunity to announce his departure and his continuance in the role on a caretaker-only basis pending election of a new Conservative leader who would have the authority to undertake that negotiation.

    And once selected, I expect the new Conservative leader will fairly shortly afterwards seek a mandate from the public for the negotiating stance on which he or she has no doubt won the party nod.
    Per other comments down thread, I seem to be the only one who believes that Labour would allow an early GE vs Cameron in the event of Leave - do you see the dynamic as different if Cameron has gone? It's not clear how the new leader could seek a mandate if Labour was running scared of a GE.
    I don't see how Labour could say no if the current government claimed - with good reason - that a new mandate was required. It would look cowardly and irresponsible at the same time.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    Polruan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.
    There is no earthly way that David Cameron will stay Prime Minister for any length of time after a Leave vote. How on earth could he negotiate leaving terms? His credibility would be zero and he in any case would presumably have not the slightest appetite for the task.
    He likes winning (as an end, rather than a means) and would hate to depart as a loser. So he'd try to call a quick GE justified by the need to seek a mandate for the negotiation, which he'd believe he could win. Of course it might not be his choice, but if he moved quickly enough the party would have no choice to line up behind him, with his opponents being smeared Crosby-style as putting the economy at risk in this time of crisis, and allowing the apocalyptic risk of terrorist-sympathiser Corbyn/evil baby-eating Scots (etc) to run the country by destabilising the GE campaign with a leadership contest. And, tbf, you'd assume he'd increase the majority then stand down "triumphant" a year later.
    Fixed Terms. He can't call a GE.

    Of course he would resign after a LEAVE vote, just as he would have resigned after a Scottish YES.

    He'd be the prime minister whose deal was so shit the country told him to stuff it, despite Cameron warning us that if we vote LEAVE there'll be plagues of toads and boils. On top of that he's already told us he's going, so what would be the point in his clinging to office, just to be mocked, jeered and ridiculed, and hated by all the europhiles?

    The idea he could stay on is comical. He'd quit within weeks.
    To all intents and purposes, he can call a GE. It requires a simple majority to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and there would be no problems in the Commons, and it could be rushed through the Lords twice in 48 hours if need be.
    Actually I think in those circumstances the Lords, the crossbenchers in particular, wouldn't make any trouble. There would be a clear non-partisan case for an election. Likewise one could assume solid Conservative support in the Commons.

    That said, people seem to be taking the outcome of this election, sans Cameron, very much for granted. Some swing against the Tories seems quite likely to me and it would take very little to remove their majority.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,026

    taffys said:

    SeanT said:


    It's quite adventurous for Leavers, having demonstrated that they are utterly clueless about what Leave might mean, to demand that the Prime Minister solve their problem for them.

    It's a perfectly fair point. If Cameron is determined to stay on as PM after a LEAVE vote (of course we all know he's lying, and why) then he must surely have a plan for handling the fall-out, and preventing the catastrophe he keeps saying will occur. To do anything else would be a total dereliction of duty.

    What is his plan for Brexit? How will he prevent a collapse in sterling? Does he have a clue? He is the PM after all. It carries certain responsibilities. Maybe his intention is to stay in Number 10 just so he can laugh at the voters and say Told You So when Ebola ravages the nation from Swindon to St Ives.
    How on earth could the government draw up a plan for Leave when Leave itself doesn't know whether it's campaigning to Leave to pull up the drawbridge against immigrants or simply to move to an EFTA-style arrangement (or something else entirely)? The only sensible thing that the government could do would be to steady the ship in the very short term by taking such market actions as were required to prevent complete meltdown and agree to take stock of what the government had been mandated to do.
    That's a bit rich. How on earth can the government draw up a plan for REMAIN when our destiny is being increasingly decided by the unaccountable of Europe. Politicians and Bureaucrats.
    That isn't a line of argument. If the vote is for Remain, the government will proceed on the basis agreed last month. That may be undermined by events in the future but there is no immediate choice to make.

    If the vote is for Leave, the government immediately has choices to make. But the referendum vote, if for Leave, will be a Sphinx-like riddle that the government will need to decode. Since the Leave camp has decided that it's not going to bother herding public opinion, the government will need to take stock after the result.

    Like others, I expect a general election before the end of the year if there's a Leave vote, so that the government can establish a mandate for negotiating on a particular basis.
    There is no need for a mandate from the public. The mandate comes from the referendum and from the existing parliament. It is also likely to come from the Conservative Party membership once they will have elected a new leader.

    A general election would, in any case, be a poor medium through which to put a specific question to the public.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,851

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    It is sad that you actually believe that rubbish about breaking up the UK. I had thought you had more intelligence than that.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,897

    Pulpstar said:

    So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

    That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

    My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

    1) Opponent is Trump

    2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

    That wil also boost turnout in her favour.
    Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 29,082

    SeanT said:

    Deafbloke said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    In that case, Mr Cameron needs to outline exactly what his plans for Brexit are, seeing as he is going to be the one implementing it.
    It's quite adventurous for Leavers, having demonstrated that they are utterly clueless about what Leave might mean, to demand that the Prime Minister solve their problem for them.
    It's a perfectly fair point. If Cameron is determined to stay on as PM after a LEAVE vote (of course we all know he's lying, and why) then he must surely have a plan for handling the fall-out, and preventing the catastrophe he keeps saying will occur. To do anything else would be a total dereliction of duty.

    What is his plan for Brexit? How will he prevent a collapse in sterling? Does he have a clue? He is the PM after all. It carries certain responsibilities. Maybe his intention is to stay in Number 10 just so he can laugh at the voters and say Told You So when Ebola ravages the nation from Swindon to St Ives.
    How on earth could the government draw up a plan for Leave when Leave itself doesn't know whether it's campaigning to Leave to pull up the drawbridge against immigrants or simply to move to an EFTA-style arrangement (or something else entirely)? The only sensible thing that the government could do would be to steady the ship in the very short term by taking such market actions as were required to prevent complete meltdown and agree to take stock of what the government had been mandated to do.
    If the civil service haven't been making contingency plans (even if these have not been shared with ministers to maintain deniability) I'd be very surprised.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,297
    edited March 2016


    the new "free self determining" government

    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."
    - Margaret Thatcher writing in "Statescraft" (2002)

  • I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    It is sad that you actually believe that rubbish about breaking up the UK. I had thought you had more intelligence than that.
    It's not whether I believe it (I don't) but whether the wider public do.

    But sometimes in politics, perceptions matter more than the facts.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,866


    It is extraordinary that Cameron is now effectively admitting that he called a referendum where one outcome is inherently dangerous for the country.

    And he just hoped we wouldn't pick it? Huh?

    A decent opposition would be ripping him apart right now.

    That was Labour's argument - it's OK to have a referendum if you are offering a choice of two options which the country could reasonably choose (say whether or not to sign up for very expensive nuclear energy in the interest of energy security), but if you sincerely think that one option is bonkers for the country then you shouldn't be offering it, even if you're confident that you can persuade the country not to do it. At best you are wasting everyone's time.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,851

    I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

    That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.
    I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    SeanT said:


    We have a plan for the eventuality that America invades us. Why would we not have a plan for the far likelier and more imminent outcome of leaving the EU, even if there were three or four scenarios?

    SeanT said:


    The government must draw up a plan because it will be the government in charge of events post Brexit. At the moment the polls show Brexit as a 49% possibility, the betting markets put it at about 30%. 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A government that didn't have contingency plans for dealing with such a very very possible outcome - or disaster - is not a government worthy of the name.

    Cameron can't squirm out of this one. If he wants to stay as PM and manage Brexit, he has to tell us how that management would work. Of course it's awkward for him, but that's because he's lying. We all know that he'd quit. But he's lied, so there it is. Now he has to embroider the lie.

    Both of you are missing the point that the plan has to respect the referendum vote. Until we have some sense of what a vote to Leave means, a plan cannot be drawn up. If the plan is to join EFTA, the anti-immigrant voters will consider that a stab in the back of democracy. If the plan is to stand in splendid isolation, the worldly-wise citizens of the world Leavers in the City will be appalled.

    You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it.
    Stop being a boring arse. Of course we're not expecting Cameron to come up with a ten point plan for the UK's constitutional future over the next decade, he just needs to tell us how he'd stop all the immediate horrors which he himself has threatened: the jungle coming to Kent, the collapse in Sterling, the immediate disinvestment, banks fleeing to Paris, giant dogs eating small weans, etc. He must have a plan to prevent this, given that LEAVE is highly possible.

    He's the fecking PM, for Christ's sake. It's his JOB.
    Oh stop being a total tit yourself. Mr Meeks is perfectly correct in his logic. When the Bank of England announce what they are doing or are prepared to do to prop up the economy and our entire financial infrastructure in the event of a leave vote - leave themselves say they are scaremongering.

    Leave are a total shower.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,851

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    It is sad that you actually believe that rubbish about breaking up the UK. I had thought you had more intelligence than that.
    It's not whether I believe it (I don't) but whether the wider public do.

    But sometimes in politics, perceptions matter more than the facts.
    My faith in your intelligence is restored
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,230

    Chris A...Which part of the Hippocratic Oath did the Junior Doctors not read..or didn't like or thought was useless..or forgot....

    What Hippocratic Oath? You need to stop watching Hollywood films and live in the real world. A world where such woeful planning by DoH, Lansley et al have led to a crisis in GP recruitment. Here's the Public Accounts committee on the subject http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubacc/673/673.pdf

    Hunt of course has made the problem a lot worse as there will be fewer juniors coming through
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Wanderer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    Polruan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.
    There is no earthly way that David Cameron will stay Prime Minister for any length of time after a Leave vote. How on earth could he negotiate leaving terms? His credibility would be zero and he in any case would presumably have not the slightest appetite for the task.
    Fixed Terms. He can't call a GE.

    Of course he would resign after a LEAVE vote, just as he would have resigned after a Scottish YES.

    He'd be the prime minister whose deal was so shit the country told him to stuff it, despite Cameron warning us that if we vote LEAVE there'll be plagues of toads and boils. On top of that he's already told us he's going, so what would be the point in his clinging to office, just to be mocked, jeered and ridiculed, and hated by all the europhiles?

    The idea he could stay on is comical. He'd quit within weeks.
    To all intents and purposes, he can call a GE. It requires a simple majority to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and there would be no problems in the Commons, and it could be rushed through the Lords twice in 48 hours if need be.
    Actually I think in those circumstances the Lords, the crossbenchers in particular, wouldn't make any trouble. There would be a clear non-partisan case for an election. Likewise one could assume solid Conservative support in the Commons.

    That said, people seem to be taking the outcome of this election, sans Cameron, very much for granted. Some swing against the Tories seems quite likely to me and it would take very little to remove their majority.
    There are a few here who think the next GE is a shoo in for the Tories.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,297
    Re. Sunday Trading

    Anyone else been to Westfield Stratford in east London, next to the Olympic Park?
    On Sundays, whilst doors may open at or by 11.30am, most of the shops don't open their tills until Midday.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Polruan said:

    SeanT said:

    Stop being a boring arse. Of course we're not expecting Cameron to come up with a ten point plan for the UK's constitutional future over the next decade, he just needs to tell us how he'd stop all the immediate horrors which he himself has threatened: the jungle coming to Kent, the collapse in Sterling, the immediate disinvestment, banks fleeing to Paris, giant dogs eating small weans, etc. He must have a plan to prevent this, given that LEAVE is highly possible.

    He's the fecking PM, for Christ's sake. It's his JOB.

    Well, it won't be his job then. That is one thing we both agree on.

    It really isn't in Leave's interests to point out the complete incoherence of their howls against 21st century complexities. It does rather invite the comment: "what, you have no idea what you're campaigning for?"

    In practice what do I think would happen? On day one, the Prime Minister will make a bland statement about respecting the result, preparing to trigger Article 50 as promised and then seeking to establish the authority to enter into negotiations with the EU about the terms of our departure. My guess is that he would take the opportunity to announce his departure and his continuance in the role on a caretaker-only basis pending election of a new Conservative leader who would have the authority to undertake that negotiation.

    And once selected, I expect the new Conservative leader will fairly shortly afterwards seek a mandate from the public for the negotiating stance on which he or she has no doubt won the party nod.
    Per other comments down thread, I seem to be the only one who believes that Labour would allow an early GE vs Cameron in the event of Leave - do you see the dynamic as different if Cameron has gone? It's not clear how the new leader could seek a mandate if Labour was running scared of a GE.
    I don't see how Labour could say no if the current government claimed - with good reason - that a new mandate was required. It would look cowardly and irresponsible at the same time.
    I'd have thought the biggest difficulty is that it would upset Labour's supporters who would think that they would be sure to stuff the hated Tories in any election, so refusing to cooperate in calling one would be needlessly keeping the Tories in power.
  • OllyT said:

    Pulpstar said:

    So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

    That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

    My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

    1) Opponent is Trump

    2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

    That wil also boost turnout in her favour.
    Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
    Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

    Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

    Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

    Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,520

    Ex LD MP Paul Keetch made a very good case for Leave. Worth googling

    If you're in favour of local power, how is the EU helping your cause?

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    taffys said:

    ''You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it. ''

    Maybe, but it would be free and self determining. Nothing beats that. No Alphabet soup or economic sophistry you can throw at me would ever convince me otherwise. Either you control your own destiny or you don't. And we increasingly don't. And those that do are more or less unaccountable or un sackable.

    So you vote Leave and when the economic warnings prove to be true , you will blame the new "free self determining" government rather than putting a revolver to your head and getting rid of one of those who voted to harm the economy of the country .
    Part of the point of leaving is that nationally elected politicians can have responsibilities and be held accountable for them. Given the mess in the Eurozone, claim integration improves economies is very weak.
    If the Leave campaign was at all serious about winning, they'd be making these arguments front and centre when talking to left-leaning voters. Instead, we get immigrants, sovereignty, and a global outlook whatever that means. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more senior figures in the Lib Dems come out and make these points, but Paul Keetch does command some respect.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,897
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

    That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

    Don't get overly hung up on the nomination results in relation to the general election.

    In 08 Obama lost Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania to Clinton but won them all in the general election.
    How would you rate Sanders chances in Ohio next week ?

    Also Obama has a much more magnetic personality than HRC methinks.
    Polls are all over the place - 2 new Ohio ones today - CNN gives Clinton a 30% lead, Quinnipiac 9%. I think Clinton will win but by single digits.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 29,082


    We have a plan for the eventuality that America invades us. Why would we not have a plan for the far likelier and more imminent outcome of leaving the EU, even if there were three or four scenarios?

    SeanT said:


    The government must draw up a plan because it will be the government in charge of events post Brexit. At the moment the polls show Brexit as a 49% possibility, the betting markets put it at about 30%. 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A government that didn't have contingency plans for dealing with such a very very possible outcome - or disaster - is not a government worthy of the name.

    Cameron can't squirm out of this one. If he wants to stay as PM and manage Brexit, he has to tell us how that management would work. Of course it's awkward for him, but that's because he's lying. We all know that he'd quit. But he's lied, so there it is. Now he has to embroider the lie.

    Both of you are missing the point that the plan has to respect the referendum vote. Until we have some sense of what a vote to Leave means, a plan cannot be drawn up. If the plan is to join EFTA, the anti-immigrant voters will consider that a stab in the back of democracy. If the plan is to stand in splendid isolation, the worldly-wise citizens of the world Leavers in the City will be appalled.

    You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it.
    That's why you have a general election.

    There are people saying "we don't want to be members of the EU on these terms". That's all we can learn from the referendum.

    After the referendum, presumably the Tories, UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems et al will have different recommended negotiation strategies and objectives. So we have an election and then (one hopes!) there will be a new government with a clear mandate. If it's a UKIP government we will have a clean exit approach, a Tory government will probably go with EEA/EFTA, don't know what Labour or the LibDems would do.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,320
    SeanT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    Polruan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
    "If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
    Answer = No.

    Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.
    There is no earthly way that David Cameron will stay Prime Minister for any length of time after a Leave vote. How on earth could he negotiate leaving terms? His credibility would be zero and he in any case would presumably have not the slightest appetite for the task.
    He likesant" a year later.
    Fixed Terms. He can't call a GE.

    Of course he would resign after a LEAVE vote, just as he would have resigned after a Scottish YES.

    He'd be the prime minister whose deal was so shit the country told him to stuff it, despite Cameron warning us that if we vote LEAVE there'll be plagues of toads and boils. On top of that he's already told us he's going, so what would be the point in his clinging to office, just to be mocked, jeered and ridiculed, and hated by all the europhiles?

    The idea he could stay on is comical. He'd quit within weeks.
    To all intents and purposes, he can call a GE. It requires a simple majority to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and there would be no problems in the Commons, and it could be rushed through the Lords twice in 48 hours if need be.
    This is after a LEAVE vote. Why would the 140 LEAVE Tory MPs want to help Cameron out of his self-inflicted pickle AND risk a GE they might actually lose? The party would laugh in his face and tell him to get stuffed.

    Really. It's just daft. Following a LEAVE vote, Cameron would quit, and the Tories would elect a new leader to handle things, and the most likely chain of events, following that, is that they'd go to the country in 2020, saying This is how we'd govern independent UK, see if you agree.
    The reason why is because there is no one in the party to take over from Cameron. Boris is seen as a loose cannon, Gove gives Corbyn a run for his money in terms of unpopularity and no other prominent Leaver can command enough support across the party. Like him or not, Dave is going to be PM in the event of remain or leave. Osborne and Hammond will be axed as the compromise.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,851

    I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

    That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.
    I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.
    Yeah, I agree. The possible successors in that scenario are those who (in Cameron's eyes) would make a bad situation for the Cameron legacy considerably worse. Hence the idea that he'd cling on and try and engineer a GE so he could have his increase in the majority as a consolation prize (and ideally get clear before the next Indyref).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 29,082

    Anne Marie Cunningham
    Could anyone make sense of a letter like this? Something is wrong with some NHS process somewhere https://t.co/OQXzl2PjQn

    It is to do with govt targets for the 18 week referral to treatment. There needs to be a date logged in a ghost clinic, while getting additional information to know which clinic is best for the patient.

    Simply booking an appointment in a clinic where the patient is not seen by the right person is not helpful. Such referral management systems are a way to shorten waits, not conceal them!
    Surely some IT bod can come up with a way to stop the automated letters being sent?
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    SeanT said:

    There's a Times story today about this. A coup is rumoured again.

    Scott_P said:

    @JoeWatts_: Interesting. Corbyn's spksman says his view is that the ldr is already automatically on ballot in any potential Labour leadership contest.

    Now, why would that question arise...?

    Yes, I've read lots of rumours. I know we've been here before but these sound more concrete than normal.

    If they do junk Corbyn and get in someone reasonable I can see the Tories losing their majority in 2020 very easily, after a hideously divisive euroref.
    The Tories have been planning to face a less left wing leader in 2020, their meme will be Labour are only a heartbeat away from a hard left takeover
    There is no way to remove Corbyn unless he dies or resigns or the membership have an epiphany.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Charles said:


    We have a plan for the eventuality that America invades us. Why would we not have a plan for the far likelier and more imminent outcome of leaving the EU, even if there were three or four scenarios?

    SeanT said:


    The government must draw up a plan because it will be the government in charge of events post Brexit. At the moment the polls show Brexit as a 49% possibility, the betting markets put it at about 30%. 1 in 2, or 1 in 3. A government that didn't have contingency plans for dealing with such a very very possible outcome - or disaster - is not a government worthy of the name.

    Cameron can't squirm out of this one. If he wants to stay as PM and manage Brexit, he has to tell us how that management would work. Of course it's awkward for him, but that's because he's lying. We all know that he'd quit. But he's lied, so there it is. Now he has to embroider the lie.

    Both of you are missing the point that the plan has to respect the referendum vote. Until we have some sense of what a vote to Leave means, a plan cannot be drawn up. If the plan is to join EFTA, the anti-immigrant voters will consider that a stab in the back of democracy. If the plan is to stand in splendid isolation, the worldly-wise citizens of the world Leavers in the City will be appalled.

    You might well argue that the incompetence of the Leave campaign in this regard would leave Britain very badly placed, forced to make a leap in the dark. You cannot blame the government for not making the Leave camp's arguments for it.
    That's why you have a general election.

    There are people saying "we don't want to be members of the EU on these terms". That's all we can learn from the referendum.

    After the referendum, presumably the Tories, UKIP, Labour, Lib Dems et al will have different recommended negotiation strategies and objectives. So we have an election and then (one hopes!) there will be a new government with a clear mandate. If it's a UKIP government we will have a clean exit approach, a Tory government will probably go with EEA/EFTA, don't know what Labour or the LibDems would do.
    Once again all you can do is point to chaos following any Leave vote as the ferrets continue to squabble in their sack.
    Business at home and abroad will look on aghast and act accordingly.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited March 2016
    @Chris_A

    'It may have fallen out of news temporarily but has not gone away and not will do so as the gaps in the rota get bigger, the agency staff bill gets higher and care gets poorer.'


    Could the 'care' get any poorer than it is to-day,so much for all that crap about putting patients safety above filling their own pockets.
  • LucyJonesLucyJones Posts: 646
    MaxPB said:

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    Scotland won't leave if we vote to Leave. The GERS figures from today confirm that. The EU is not going to plug Scotland's £15bn hole like we do.

    In fact within the EU Scotland would be forced to abide by the 3% deficit rule. We basically just ignore it since we are in the EMU and will never be in it they don't kick up a fuss. Smaller nations who have tried to ignore it have never done well. Scotland would be forced to endure 3-5 years of eyewatering austerity to balance the budget.
    If Sturgeon really wanted Scottish independence, why isn't she should be out campaigning for Leave?

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,741

    Re. Sunday Trading

    Anyone else been to Westfield Stratford in east London, next to the Olympic Park?
    On Sundays, whilst doors may open at or by 11.30am, most of the shops don't open their tills until Midday.

    I go there regularly. Large stores are (I think) allowed 6 hours of tills being open, with 12-6 the favoured period at Westfield, rather than 11-5PM as my local ASDA does, or 10-4 as B&Q does.

    I assume that's because people travel further.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    Anne Marie Cunningham
    Could anyone make sense of a letter like this? Something is wrong with some NHS process somewhere https://t.co/OQXzl2PjQn

    It is to do with govt targets for the 18 week referral to treatment. There needs to be a date logged in a ghost clinic, while getting additional information to know which clinic is best for the patient.

    Simply booking an appointment in a clinic where the patient is not seen by the right person is not helpful. Such referral management systems are a way to shorten waits, not conceal them!
    Surely some IT bod can come up with a way to stop the automated letters being sent?
    Clearly you have never worked with NHS IT!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,351
    LucyJones said:

    MaxPB said:

    I can imagine the public believing the Queen preferring to keep the UK together than leaving the EU.

    Whichever Brexiter decided to spin that story to The Sun must be feeling like a right numpty.

    Remain must be purring.

    Scotland won't leave if we vote to Leave. The GERS figures from today confirm that. The EU is not going to plug Scotland's £15bn hole like we do.

    In fact within the EU Scotland would be forced to abide by the 3% deficit rule. We basically just ignore it since we are in the EMU and will never be in it they don't kick up a fuss. Smaller nations who have tried to ignore it have never done well. Scotland would be forced to endure 3-5 years of eyewatering austerity to balance the budget.
    If Sturgeon really wanted Scottish independence, why isn't she should be out campaigning for Leave?

    Because she believes the UK is better of inside the EU?

    Never mind the real politik tht Scotland has to vote Remain whilst the rest of the UK votes leave. It would hard to campaign on both platforms simultaneously
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JackW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

    That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

    Don't get overly hung up on the nomination results in relation to the general election.

    In 08 Obama lost Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania to Clinton but won them all in the general election.
    How would you rate Sanders chances in Ohio next week ?

    Also Obama has a much more magnetic personality than HRC methinks.
    Two polls out of Ohio today :

    ORC C+30 .. Quinnipiac C+9

    I'm far far more in the Quinnipiac camp than ORC.

    One other factor to consider. There will come a time, although not yet, when Dems will swing behind the perceived nominee - Clinton. We are aways from that at the moment but it's a factor to consider for punting purposes.
    What rot! Clinton has been the perceived nominee all along, and yet the swing has been away from her. The Michigan result was a real shocker.

    She will still get the nomination, but it rather has the feel of those key Senate votes where, once the Speaker has the votes needed, a bunch of the remaining Senators feel free to vote against their party for the sake of their voting record cum election time. So with Bernie, some may vote for him once it is clear Hillary has it in the bag.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,381
    @MTimT Clinton will I think get the nomination, but it could be fascinating if Sanders manages to keep all 5 states reasonably competitive next week, perhaps winning Ohio and Missouri, and keeping the gap sub 10 in the other 3. The calendar then gets better for him and he can eat into Hilary's lead.

    For her to get the nomination in a superdelegate robbery would be a dream come true for Trump !
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited March 2016
    TEST
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited March 2016
    TEST
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited March 2016
    test
This discussion has been closed.