Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Chancellor of the Exchequer betting

1234579

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,896
    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    So he’s more worried about May?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    HYUFD said:

    Prescott speaking a lot of good sense on The Daily Politics. Says the PLP expected Corbyn to resign and that has not happened and talk of a separate PLP party is ridiculous, the members and MPs have to come together to fight the Tories otherwise they could be out for another 18 years. He also branded ridiculous attempts by some Corbynites to brand Blair a 'war criminal' after Chilcott. He looks like a colossus compared to the present leader and shadow cabinet and that is saying something!

    Well he is a lot chunkier, and, markedly more handsome than Gove which is actually something.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Because otherwise you will have a substantial minority crying betrayal (assuming the government compromises on FoM to get the best economic outcome)

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,807
    Ishmael_X said:

    Statesmanship - or my preferred version of it - is a big, boring, negative: keeping the shit away from the fan, and steering the Titanic round the iceberg.

    Please stand for the leadership of the Conservative party. I think they've forgotten how to Government.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited July 2016

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    He stated it quite clearly. Isn't it time the Nats stopped lying to the people about the EU ? It didn't work in the SIndy referendum.
    So you will have no problem finding the quote were he says Spain will veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU then?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,613
    F1 - 30 minutes to go, and it's still dry. Rain expected at some point during the race though.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,410
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    ChaosOdin said:

    Aside from brexit issues I think people are becoming irritated by Junkers diplomatic incompetence.

    Interfering with the Scottish situation was clearly out of order for a continent that relies on UK defence and intelligence capability.

    I would guess Juncker will be dispensed with once there is a new UK PM and the negotiations are going to begin in earnest. Not only has he burned all his bridges as any kind of honest broker but his political decapitation will be a nice peace gesture to all sides and sub-factions.

    It was the behaviour of a childish man whose only interest was inflaming the situation. He banned everyone from talking to us, then met up personally with Sturgeon.
    First real politician from UK that he has had to meet with.

    The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.

    The Scots, like the rest of us, voted on whether the UNITED KINGDOM should remain in or leave the European Union.

    Scotland voted to remain
    Malc, with respect, what did your ballot paper ask you?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,418

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Nick, I've scheduled your piece to go up at 2.30pm
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    The choice on the ballot is:

    1. Accept the recommended deal
    2. Leave with no deal (ie WTO)

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    Jobabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    LOL. They was a party political broadcast for the Theresa May campaign.
    Judging by the comments he actually prefers May, just wants the Tories to pick Gove for party political advantage
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262
    The reality is that EEA Scotland within the UK is a far far better deal for Scotland than an 'independent' Scotland as a province of the EU. Sturgeon (great politician) knows this, and her carefully worded statements reflect it.

    The idea of Scotland surrendering newly acquired fisheries and farming rights to the EU for the sake of what boils down to some politically correct posturing would be an extremely hard sell. As would joining the euro. It would be giving up independence gained.

    Indyref 2 campaigners are a useful negotiating tool. It's good for Sturgeon and Scotland that they're there, but they will essentially be marched up and down the hill like The Grand Old Duke of York's 10,000 men. They won't get what they want.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Alistair said:

    Indigo said:

    stjohn said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Gove is the preferred candidate of both Carswell and Hannan

    So the people who have mostly loudly protested it is not about immigation and we should stay in the EEA and keep free movement are backing the one candidate who would take us out of the common market and end free movement?
    I Know. Sounds crazy. How can you prioritise Freedom of Movement and vote for Gove?
    Because they don't. Or at least not as controlled by the EU. Hannan is a communitarian, he believes the control of immigration is the business of the institutions of the UK and no one else. If we then elect a government who choses to let lots of people in, that is our business, if we dont like the result, we can then kick that government out.
    We repeatedly elected governments that were fine with unlimited immigration from the EU.
    Christ on a bike we really are rehearsing every cheap debating ploy on here today arent we.

    People voted for governments that were fine with unlimited immigration because all three major parties held exactly the same views and people mostly (quite understandably) didn't want the country run by Farage. They also probably from time to time had other priorities.

    This does not mean they were even generally happy about the immigration system as many large scale detailed surveys have been telling us for years. Check the last few British Social Attitudes surveys for example, three quarters of the population want immigration cut, half the population by a lot.
  • LowlanderLowlander Posts: 941
    HaroldO said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    It would be fascinating to see what would happen to Scotland is they did join, even if they were allowed to somehow keep the pound they would have a huge budget deficit to fund and would be a net contributor to the EU budget to boot.
    I bet those first few years would be shaky.
    Scotland pays £200m a week to be part of the UK.

    Let's spend that money on our NHS instead.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    He stated it quite clearly. Isn't it time the Nats stopped lying to the people about the EU ? It didn't work in the SIndy referendum.
    So you will have no problem finding the vote were he says Spain will veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU then?
    You've probably read a poor translation of his words in The National. In Spanish his meaning is crystal clear.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    Has this been seen today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens

    Britzerland is dead, I think we will have to accept off the shelf norway style EEA or WTO. Any fig leaf on immigration would have to come from changes to our benefits system, and just hoping it falls naturally with all the uncertainty.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2016

    I don't disagree with any of this.

    It's just quite remarkable that you can list no policy successes whatsoever from her tenure as Home Secretary. Her career is a total success vacuum.

    The only 'positives' I can bring to mind when I think of Theresa May are when she bopped the Tories in kitten heels, or when she bopped the Police Federation - etc. Everyone got all excited, just like they do when Cameron makes a nice speech. But like Cameron, there was no follow up - nothing there. Having just had a wind-up mouth with no substance as PM, and with the country a total wreck (regardless of Brexit), I don't think we can afford someone else like that.

    The latter is froth to a large degree, although for a Conservative Home Secretary to give the Police Federation a bloody nose to their face, rather than the Govian option, shows character.

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood for the times we have ahead.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    I think he is pretending to be a plant in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    The choice on the ballot is:

    1. Accept the recommended deal
    2. Leave with no deal (ie WTO)

    I want WTO.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,340

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    The choice on the ballot is:

    1. Accept the recommended deal
    2. Leave with no deal (ie WTO)

    I want WTO.
    Then you should be able to vote for that. Hopefully May has the cojones to call the referendum and shut everyone up.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,410

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    J Clarkson...

    Today lots of people — me includedWhy not? Where in the constitution does it say we must abide by the result of a plebiscite, no matter how moronic that result might be? It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything in fact because we don’t really have a constitution in Britain. So we can do what happens to be sensible at any given moment. And what is sensible now surely is to hold a vote when everyone is equipped with the most powerful tool in the box: hindsight.

    Of course this would infuriate millions of idiotic north of England coffin-dodgers who are prepared to bankrupt the country simply because they don’t want to live next door to a “darkie”. Many will write angry letters full of capital letters and underlining to their local newspapers. And there will be lots of discontent in various bingo halls, but who cares? They’ll all be dead soon anyway.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/our-only-hope-is-a-second-vote-and-a-truly-rotten-pm-ss3ptqwn5

    Clarkson's tantrum is exquisitely enjoyable. Thanks for sharing it, Scott. It made my day even better.
    It is just what you would expect from that odious buffoon, easy for a thick millionaire to insult ordinary people.
    Clarkson's singing for his supper. He wants that knighthood something awful.
    That's a thought? Will David Cameron have a resignation honours list?
    The tragedy of the referendum is it means TSE won't be getting that peerage.

    I turned down a life peerage last year, I wanted a Royal Dukedom, the Duke of Sheffield or maybe the Duke of Yorkshire
    Both are already taken - Baron Sheffield is a cadet of the Marquess of Normanby and Yorkshire is a Royal Dukedom (for a Royal Dukedom they won't split territorial rights in the way they did with Devon/Devonshire)
    Fine, I'll take the newly created position of Viceroy of France, and I'll take an ordinary hereditary peerage with that and a God Calls Me God
    Your excellency, the Duke of Dork!

    Your loyal PB subordinates would like to ask whether Your Excellency is aware that the Treaty of Troyes (1420) has been superseded by the Treaty of Amiens (1802)?

    In the latter agreement, UK monarchs have recognised the French Republic and have renounced any rights to the French Throne.

    yours in perpetual feality,

    The PB riff-raff!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    edited July 2016
    Lowlander said:

    scotslass said:

    Rajoy was notably silent on the possibility of Scotland holding a referendum and voting for independence before the Brexit occurs. In fact he ended his statement with the remark, “Whatever happens in the future, that’s not for me to say,” a comment which wasn’t reported in the British press. The Brexit won’t occur for at least two years after the UK Government invokes Article 50 and commences negotiations to leave the EU: if Scotland holds an independence referendum before then and votes for independence, we’re in a whole different game. Already the Belgian press is reporting that the EU is willing to allow Scotland to take over the UK’s EU membership, as long as we go for independence before Brexit."

    Yes, the lack of mention of a veto from Rajoy was the most telling detail about any of the EU/Scotland discussion since Brexit.

    For the EU there is also the added bonus that considering Scotland the continuing state after an Independence vote allows the EU to dictate the timetable and effectively bypass the UK delaying Article 50 and trying to hold the EU to ransom.
    Which is why May will not delay negotiations for too long once she becomes, almost certainly, PM in September. A Scotland which is outside the EU and outside EFTA will certainly vote for independence but if she can get an EFTA deal in the next year or so then invoke Article 50 I would not be so certain Scotland would vote to leave the UK and membership of EFTA just to join the EU, especially as they may end up in the Eurozone. I could see a 51% to 49% No vote or similar in such circumstances, remember most of the over 60s who voted so strongly No in 2014 will still be alive if the referendum takes place in 2017/18. The voters most likely to vote Yes are also least likely to turnout, exactly as EUref
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,563
    HYUFD said:

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    I think he is pretending to be a plant in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
    WTF. MacBeth Gove is a "better person"? What sort of comment is that from the Opposition?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    I didn't favour having the Brexit referendum, which seemed to me all about Tory Party management, but taking the argument for it at face value, it was that people were entitled to vote directly on the fundamental arrangements with the Continent. Having expressed a preference in principle, they're entitled to vote on whether they like the final outcome (numerous other countries with much less of a stake will be having referendums on it).

    If people say no, I suspect the question of reconsideration of the decision itself will re-emerge. If people favour withdrawal in principle but are against the best available deal to achieve it, then it would be odd to press ahead anyway.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    He stated it quite clearly. Isn't it time the Nats stopped lying to the people about the EU ? It didn't work in the SIndy referendum.
    So you will have no problem finding the vote were he says Spain will veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU then?
    You've probably read a poor translation of his words in The National. In Spanish his meaning is crystal clear.
    Some of my family members speak fluent Spanish, please post the original in Spanish and I'll ask them to confirm your crystal clear interpretation.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,807
    HaroldO said:

    At a time when the EU is in trouble they will take on a new member with a better deal than a lot of current members have? Seriously?

    If the EU are smart, they will do exactly that: it would turn rUK into West Berlin.
    However, we have lots of evidence that the EU is not smart, so probably no need to worry. It's not like we've had low-probability events with associated enormous financial loss recently, is it...oh.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    She needs to negotiate what she believes is the best possible deal (presumably involving a compromise on FoM).And then put that to a vote - either accept her proposal or go for completely out (on WTO terms).

    She needs to get the final relationship endorsed by the people.

    Leaving aside the lizard analogy for a moment, there's an obvious problem with this. We've just had a six-month campaign that was poorly planned and funded, not preceded by a softening-up campaign, and faced a critical press and a better-funded better-organised campaign that lied like a bastard and got away with it.

    Holding a second referendum is easy: winning it is hard. At the very least it will need a shedload of money, way more than last time. REMAIN City firms were parsimonious in UKREF1, and LEAVE ones were not. Will they be more generous for UKREF2? I know stats but you know money, so this is your field not mine. Will the money men turn up this time?
    better-funded better-organised campaign

    wut ? did I miss the 9m pound brochure released on behalf of the leave campaign, or government departments being able to research and brief for remain while leave couldnt even get access to the information, and then the government press offices banging away for remain for most of the campaign free of charge.

  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Hi Nick. I have just spent the weekend in WWC Labour Leave country. A few thoughts:

    - those that think the division in the country will soon be brushed away are wrong. Families are divided, and angry with each other for voting the way they did (everyone seems bizarrely keen to say how they voted)

    - neither side wants to back down, but any softening there is seems to be more on the Leave side. There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble

    - it is far from obvious that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Lowlander said:

    HaroldO said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    It would be fascinating to see what would happen to Scotland is they did join, even if they were allowed to somehow keep the pound they would have a huge budget deficit to fund and would be a net contributor to the EU budget to boot.
    I bet those first few years would be shaky.
    Scotland pays £200m a week to be part of the UK.

    Let's spend that money on our NHS instead.
    Second part is wrong. Needs more weasel. It should be 'Let's fund our NHS instead'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Because otherwise you will have a substantial minority crying betrayal (assuming the government compromises on FoM to get the best economic outcome)

    Cries of betrayal are inevitable - people are saying they are disenfranchised because the side they voted for lost for crying out loud - so they MAY as well just do it.

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that..
    That's true - but surely the fact a large proportion did not, and did so vociferously, means that while Labour can try to speak for Remainers (in the sense of going for the best deal the country can get), it cannot pitch itself as still being for Remain without a very real chance of losing those voters?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262
    JackW said:

    I don't disagree with any of this.

    It's just quite remarkable that you can list no policy successes whatsoever from her tenure as Home Secretary. Her career is a total success vacuum.

    The only 'positives' I can bring to mind when I think of Theresa May are when she bopped the Tories in kitten heels, or when she bopped the Police Federation - etc. Everyone got all excited, just like they do when Cameron makes a nice speech. But like Cameron, there was no follow up - nothing there. Having just had a wind-up mouth with no substance as PM, and with the country a total wreck (regardless of Brexit), I don't think we can afford someone else like that.

    The latter is froth to a large degree, although for a Conservative Home Secretary to give the Police Federation a bloody nose to their face, rather than the Govian option, shows character.

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood the the times we have ahead.

    Are you seriously saying we don't have any methods of measuring the competency of a Home Secretary?

    You might like the shoes, the speeches, and the 'mood'. For me that's an utterly inadequate set of qualifications.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,389

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    He stated it quite clearly. Isn't it time the Nats stopped lying to the people about the EU ? It didn't work in the SIndy referendum.
    So you will have no problem finding the vote were he says Spain will veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU then?
    You've probably read a poor translation of his words in The National. In Spanish his meaning is crystal clear.
    Enlighten us with the relevant phrase or passage in Spanish, then everyone can decide for themselves.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Indigo said:

    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.

    Would that 102 UKIP MP's up north ?

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Scott_P said:

    J Clarkson...

    Today lots of people — me included — are suggesting there should be a second vote on this whole Europe business, but we’re told by people in suits that this is not possible. And when we ask why, they say: “Because you just can’t.”

    Why not? Where in the constitution does it say we must abide by the result of a plebiscite, no matter how moronic that result might be? It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything in fact because we don’t really have a constitution in Britain. So we can do what happens to be sensible at any given moment. And what is sensible now surely is to hold a vote when everyone is equipped with the most powerful tool in the box: hindsight.

    Of course this would infuriate millions of idiotic north of England coffin-dodgers who are prepared to bankrupt the country simply because they don’t want to live next door to a “darkie”. Many will write angry letters full of capital letters and underlining to their local newspapers. And there will be lots of discontent in various bingo halls, but who cares? They’ll all be dead soon anyway.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/our-only-hope-is-a-second-vote-and-a-truly-rotten-pm-ss3ptqwn5

    Don't hold back, Jeremy.
    J Clarkson - what a Dickhead.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,807
    MikeK said:
    THREE-DIMENSIONAL PIE CHART! AAARGH!

    (Sorry. It's a Bad Thing)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    I didn't favour having the Brexit referendum, which seemed to me all about Tory Party management, but taking the argument for it at face value, it was that people were entitled to vote directly on the fundamental arrangements with the Continent. Having expressed a preference in principle, they're entitled to vote on whether they like the final outcome (numerous other countries with much less of a stake will be having referendums on it).

    If people say no, I suspect the question of reconsideration of the decision itself will re-emerge. If people favour withdrawal in principle but are against the best available deal to achieve it, then it would be odd to press ahead anyway.

    Not sure that this works. If we have got to the stage of accepting or rejecting a deal surely that means A50 has been triggered. If that is the case it does not matter whether we accept or reject: we are on our way out or we stay put in precisely the terms the EU dictates.

  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Hi Nick. I have just spent the weekend in WWC Labour Leave country. A few thoughts:

    - those that think the division in the country will soon be brushed away are wrong. Families are divided, and angry with each other for voting the way they did (everyone seems bizarrely keen to say how they voted)

    - neither side wants to back down, but any softening there is seems to be more on the Leave side. There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    JackW said:

    I don't disagree with any of this.

    It's just quite remarkable that you can list no policy successes whatsoever from her tenure as Home Secretary. Her career is a total success vacuum.

    The only 'positives' I can bring to mind when I think of Theresa May are when she bopped the Tories in kitten heels, or when she bopped the Police Federation - etc. Everyone got all excited, just like they do when Cameron makes a nice speech. But like Cameron, there was no follow up - nothing there. Having just had a wind-up mouth with no substance as PM, and with the country a total wreck (regardless of Brexit), I don't think we can afford someone else like that.

    The latter is froth to a large degree, although for a Conservative Home Secretary to give the Police Federation a bloody nose to their face, rather than the Govian option, shows character.

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood the the times we have ahead.

    Are you seriously saying we don't have any methods of measuring the competency of a Home Secretary?

    You might like the shoes, the speeches, and the 'mood'. For me that's an utterly inadequate set of qualifications.
    Crime has fallen, despite police numbers also having fallen. That's all I can come up with, I'm afraid.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725

    HYUFD said:

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    I think he is pretending to be a plant in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
    WTF. MacBeth Gove is a "better person"? What sort of comment is that from the Opposition?
    He really prefers May, it is just political games
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Of course he has the right, and no doubt the High court will strike off the result and insist that all future leadership ballots be certified by Bill Cash as having been unflawed and unbiased.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    viewcode said:

    MikeK said:
    THREE-DIMENSIONAL PIE CHART! AAARGH!

    (Sorry. It's a Bad Thing)
    Count yourself lucky they didn't put the annotations in Comic Sans. Unkerned Comic Sans. Oh! The humanity!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    The choice on the ballot is:

    1. Accept the recommended deal
    2. Leave with no deal (ie WTO)

    I want WTO.
    Then you should be able to vote for that. Hopefully May has the cojones to call the referendum and shut everyone up.
    Personally I'm still hoping she doesn't win. If she does, she does, but if the EU ref result teaches us anything it's not to be overconfident in predicting electoral outcomes.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    So he’s more worried about May?
    Or he wants us to think he is more worried about May.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855
    Was it ever established if it was true or not that parliament would need to vote on article 50 at some point or if the PM can just do it?

    Hypothetical scenario - say despite protestations at present the new Tory PM decides to provoke an early General Election centered around what the preferred option for the article 50 declarations are.

    The LDs, already saying they would rejoin, are therefore bounced into saying 'Well, let's just not declare at all'.
    The Tories and Labour go for some variation of Leave.

    What happens if the LDs do revive a bit (no certainty) with such a stance, and we end up with a hung parliament? No coalition with the LDs could work with either Lab or Con in that situation, so would it be minority government but with Con and Lab having to compromise on what type of Leave is wanted (thus rendering the election pointless)?

    The SNP I presume would abstain on any vote to declare article 50 - they'll be working toward independence. And so would that give either Con or Lab enough seats to have an effective majority on that issue in any case?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    tyson said:

    HYUFD said:

    Prescott speaking a lot of good sense on The Daily Politics. Says the PLP expected Corbyn to resign and that has not happened and talk of a separate PLP party is ridiculous, the members and MPs have to come together to fight the Tories otherwise they could be out for another 18 years. He also branded ridiculous attempts by some Corbynites to brand Blair a 'war criminal' after Chilcott. He looks like a colossus compared to the present leader and shadow cabinet and that is saying something!

    Well he is a lot chunkier, and, markedly more handsome than Gove which is actually something.
    Yes I think Prescott v Gove would be difficult to call, not that it will ever happen of course
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    Lowlander said:

    HaroldO said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    It would be fascinating to see what would happen to Scotland is they did join, even if they were allowed to somehow keep the pound they would have a huge budget deficit to fund and would be a net contributor to the EU budget to boot.
    I bet those first few years would be shaky.
    Scotland pays £200m a week to be part of the UK.

    Let's spend that money on our NHS instead.
    Time to get a big yellow bus!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,563
    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Hi Nick. I have just spent the weekend in WWC Labour Leave country. A few thoughts:

    - those that think the division in the country will soon be brushed away are wrong. Families are divided, and angry with each other for voting the way they did (everyone seems bizarrely keen to say how they voted)

    - neither side wants to back down, but any softening there is seems to be more on the Leave side. There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
    "There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble"

    They were warned, but MacBeth Gove told them not to listen to experts. We haven't even started on the economic downturn.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.'


    A grandstanding trip to Brussels to have the Spanish PM tell her Spain will veto Scotland joining the EU.

    Absolute blunder might be closer to reality.

    Can you point out where Rajoy said Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU?

    Hint to save you time: you can't.
    He stated it quite clearly. Isn't it time the Nats stopped lying to the people about the EU ? It didn't work in the SIndy referendum.
    So you will have no problem finding the vote were he says Spain will veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU then?
    You've probably read a poor translation of his words in The National. In Spanish his meaning is crystal clear.
    Some of my family members speak fluent Spanish, please post the original in Spanish and I'll ask them to confirm your crystal clear interpretation.
    http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2016/06/30/577402d5ca474191038b4582.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855

    HYUFD said:

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    I think he is pretending to be a plant in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
    WTF. MacBeth Gove is a "better person"? What sort of comment is that from the Opposition?
    I believe he was saying it is clear who is the better person and politician - May - and therefore he hopes the Tories pick the worse one, Gove.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Whether it was intentional or not the genius of the Brexit campaign was to have 2 campaigns VoteLeave (the elites campaign) and Leave EU (The plebs campaign).

    This device allowed the plebs campaign the freedom to to make all the anti-immigration running and get that demographic off their backsides and into the polling booths. The elites campaign could thereby do its thing without dirtying its hands with the plebs campaign.

    The moment the elite campaign got the nod as the official campaign it was pretty obvious where this would end up if Leave won. FOM will be sacrificed for the City and the Single Market.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,169
    Indigo said:

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    So he’s more worried about May?
    Or he wants us to think he is more worried about May.
    That presupposes Burnham is subtle and intelligent. I would advise against putting money on either of those eventualities.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Hi Nick. I have just spent the weekend in WWC Labour Leave country. A few thoughts:

    - those that think the division in the country will soon be brushed away are wrong. Families are divided, and angry with each other for voting the way they did (everyone seems bizarrely keen to say how they voted)

    - neither side wants to back down, but any softening there is seems to be more on the Leave side. There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum

    Yep, I agree. Labour leavers may abandon Labour at a GE to vote for UKIP, but unlike a referendum they will not be voting on one issue. There is a lot more to it than that, including: do you ant to vote UKIP and make it easier for the Tories to retain power and do you want to vote for a party that is avowedly Thatcherite? Of course, a UKIP vote may be more likely if they felt that Labour had no chance of winning a GE.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,389
    HYUFD said:


    Which is why May will not delay negotiations for too long once she becomes, almost certainly, PM in September.

    Surely May wearing a tartan suit has put the issue to bed for a generation?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Because otherwise you will have a substantial minority crying betrayal (assuming the government compromises on FoM to get the best economic outcome)

    Cries of betrayal are inevitable - people are saying they are disenfranchised because the side they voted for lost for crying out loud - so they MAY as well just do it.

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that..
    That's true - but surely the fact a large proportion did not, and did so vociferously, means that while Labour can try to speak for Remainers (in the sense of going for the best deal the country can get), it cannot pitch itself as still being for Remain without a very real chance of losing those voters?
    The LDs are much better placed to pitch for Remain as they have few wwc supporters and even more of their voters voted for Remain than Labour, that is why Farron has presented himself as the voice of the 48%.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,410

    Scott_P said:

    J Clarkson...

    Today lots of people — me included — are suggesting there should be a second vote on this whole Europe business, but we’re told by people in suits that this is not possible. And when we ask why, they say: “Because you just can’t.”

    Why not? Where in the constitution does it say we must abide by the result of a plebiscite, no matter how moronic that result might be? It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything in fact because we don’t really have a constitution in Britain. So we can do what happens to be sensible at any given moment. And what is sensible now surely is to hold a vote when everyone is equipped with the most powerful tool in the box: hindsight.

    Of course this would infuriate millions of idiotic north of England coffin-dodgers who are prepared to bankrupt the country simply because they don’t want to live next door to a “darkie”. Many will write angry letters full of capital letters and underlining to their local newspapers. And there will be lots of discontent in various bingo halls, but who cares? They’ll all be dead soon anyway.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/our-only-hope-is-a-second-vote-and-a-truly-rotten-pm-ss3ptqwn5

    Don't hold back, Jeremy.
    J Clarkson - what a Dickhead.
    Damn - I had Clarkson down as a LEAVER!

    Belay my post from earlier in the thread!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    More from Der Spiegel. I consider this a must read if you're interested in the European side of Brexit.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-triggers-eu-power-struggle-between-merkel-and-juncker-a-1100852.html
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Lowlander said:


    No country would agree to Scotland taking over the UK's membership and Scotland would not want to. Why would Scotland want to pay what the UK pays now? Why would other member states agree to Scotland getting the UK's weight of votes or a guaranteed commissioner?

    The UK contribution is based on its population and GDP as it changes. It is not a fixed sum, otherwise it would require treaty change should the UK suffer a significant movement in GDP or population. Such as the "prosperity bonus" when Osborne agreed to pay the UK an extra £2bn.

    Inheriting the UK membership would immediately result in the contribution, vote share, etc being pro-rated without any treaty change.

    Then that is not the inheritance of the UK's membership. There would have to be negotiation. And the EU cannot negotiate terms of entry with a non-sovereign government. By far the best option for both sides is a Scottish independence vote followed by an application to join. This would essentially be fast-tracked as Scotland meets just about all criteria already - we are not talking Turkey here, so to speak. The only sticking points would be Schengen and the Euro, but as noted below there could be deals done on both (though Scottish membership of the Euro may actually make some sense now). The Brexit vote has most definitely moved things the SNP's way. Key to it all is that the Scottish and Catalonian situations are no longer analogous - though SNP politician would do well to drop the unqualified support for Catalonian independence.

    Mr Observer, I think that there are rules and preconditions about joining the Euro, none of which, from memory, a newly independent Scotland could satisfy. Therefore, the only way Scotland could be quickly admitted to the EuroZone is if the other members decided to ignore their own rules. Not impossible, of course, but it would be an area of doubt and uncertainty and I am not sure how some countries (e.g. Finland) would react to it.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,410
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.

    Would that 102 UKIP MP's up north ?

    That was Mike K, not Indigo :)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262
    John_M said:

    JackW said:

    I don't disagree with any of this.

    It's just quite remarkable that you can list no policy successes whatsoever from her tenure as Home Secretary. Her career is a total success vacuum.

    The only 'positives' I can bring to mind when I think of Theresa May are when she bopped the Tories in kitten heels, or when she bopped the Police Federation - etc. Everyone got all excited, just like they do when Cameron makes a nice speech. But like Cameron, there was no follow up - nothing there. Having just had a wind-up mouth with no substance as PM, and with the country a total wreck (regardless of Brexit), I don't think we can afford someone else like that.

    The latter is froth to a large degree, although for a Conservative Home Secretary to give the Police Federation a bloody nose to their face, rather than the Govian option, shows character.

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood the the times we have ahead.

    Are you seriously saying we don't have any methods of measuring the competency of a Home Secretary?

    You might like the shoes, the speeches, and the 'mood'. For me that's an utterly inadequate set of qualifications.
    Crime has fallen, despite police numbers also having fallen. That's all I can come up with, I'm afraid.
    Reported crime. And violent crime has risen whilst police are busy investigating people's nasty tweets: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,662
    Off topic: I think abc Australia has miscalled "Flynn" early - I reckon O'Dowd will hang on:

    http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/ A copy of my email is in there to them.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Some interesting ideas in here:

    Turn the HO into Dept for Immigration & Integration, and move its policing arm to Justice - and bring in the integration work from Comm & Local Gov...

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/dear-new-pm-heres-a-way-to-keep-your-promise-on-migration-8mqs0fph2
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855
    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
    Good old tribalism to the rescue. It's incredible how strong it is.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Because otherwise you will have a substantial minority crying betrayal (assuming the government compromises on FoM to get the best economic outcome)

    Cries of betrayal are inevitable - people are saying they are disenfranchised because the side they voted for lost for crying out loud - so they MAY as well just do it.

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that..
    That's true - but surely the fact a large proportion did not, and did so vociferously, means that while Labour can try to speak for Remainers (in the sense of going for the best deal the country can get), it cannot pitch itself as still being for Remain without a very real chance of losing those voters?
    Yes but it can gain votes from centrist Tory europhiles, of which there are millions, if it appoints a sensible credible leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,169

    Lowlander said:


    No country would agree to Scotland taking over the UK's membership and Scotland would not want to. Why would Scotland want to pay what the UK pays now? Why would other member states agree to Scotland getting the UK's weight of votes or a guaranteed commissioner?

    The UK contribution is based on its population and GDP as it changes. It is not a fixed sum, otherwise it would require treaty change should the UK suffer a significant movement in GDP or population. Such as the "prosperity bonus" when Osborne agreed to pay the UK an extra £2bn.

    Inheriting the UK membership would immediately result in the contribution, vote share, etc being pro-rated without any treaty change.

    Then that is not the inheritance of the UK's membership. There would have to be negotiation. And the EU cannot negotiate terms of entry with a non-sovereign government. By far the best option for both sides is a Scottish independence vote followed by an application to join. This would essentially be fast-tracked as Scotland meets just about all criteria already - we are not talking Turkey here, so to speak. The only sticking points would be Schengen and the Euro, but as noted below there could be deals done on both (though Scottish membership of the Euro may actually make some sense now). The Brexit vote has most definitely moved things the SNP's way. Key to it all is that the Scottish and Catalonian situations are no longer analogous - though SNP politician would do well to drop the unqualified support for Catalonian independence.

    Mr Observer, I think that there are rules and preconditions about joining the Euro, none of which, from memory, a newly independent Scotland could satisfy. Therefore, the only way Scotland could be quickly admitted to the EuroZone is if the other members decided to ignore their own rules. Not impossible, of course, but it would be an area of doubt and uncertainty and I am not sure how some countries (e.g. Finland) would react to it.
    I don't think that would be a fundamental problem in and of itself. After all, it's been ignoring its rules since it allowed Germany to join on the basis of fiddled figures in the late 1990s.

    I am however doubtful that they would want to send the message that voting to leave the EU is a quick way to regional independence and EU membership. I don't think Spain, France or Austria would thank them for that idea.
  • Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    I can only speak from personal experience - I live in rural Dorset and UKIP have been around a while. The posters pop up around election time then they disappear again. Local elections they stand in name only, no campaign no effort and the usual suspects garner around 15% of the vote. What they will miss is the oxygen of publicity they get from the EU parliament elections where they do well.

    It may well be different up north but I can't see them going anywhere but down - unless, as you say, the Tories screw up Brexit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855
    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    It's not huge, but there is a clear mandate for Leave. What there is not is a clear mandate against EEA+++ or any other option under the Leave umbrella - all are up for grabs. Some will make a lot of people very angry, but there is not a clear and direct mandate for any option within Leave, only for Leave.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725

    HYUFD said:


    Which is why May will not delay negotiations for too long once she becomes, almost certainly, PM in September.

    Surely May wearing a tartan suit has put the issue to bed for a generation?
    Yes, a clear wink to Scotland, she just needs to go to the Highland Games and eat some haggis and it is all sorted
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited July 2016
    JackW said:

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood for the times we have ahead.

    Except she didn't.

    After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

    Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

    http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/

    No action to speak of on FGM, forced marriage, Rotherham, the huge backlog of asylum seekers, the immigration crisis, the shambles that is the UK border force, no attempt to reform the police despite all the tall talking, far too much obsession with illiberal totalitarian measures like mass surveillance. etc etc

  • Austrian F1 Grand Prix

    Like Morris, I'm struggling to find any value in the betting markets.
    In the end, I've gone for one modestly priced bet .... Alonso to finish in the points, on offer at 2.375 (11/8) with Corals. Although he's in a fairly rubbish car, this looks like fair value when compared with the odds available for his team mate who is best-priced at 1.6 (3/5) with Betfair, thereby offering significantly less than half the winning return.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,169
    kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
    Good old tribalism to the rescue. It's incredible how strong it is.
    In Scotland, the SNP positioned themselves as real Socialists fighting that nasty government atWestminster, which got them Labour votes. If you like, they came across as continuity Labour.

    It's hard to see that happening with UKIP, which are still seen as a part of the Right.

    Plaid Cymru as pro-European also won't Hoover up that vote in Wales.

    A much bigger risk for Labour is that in semi-marginal seats they don't vote at all and let someone else win by default.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    I can only speak from personal experience - I live in rural Dorset and UKIP have been around a while. The posters pop up around election time then they disappear again. Local elections they stand in name only, no campaign no effort and the usual suspects garner around 15% of the vote. What they will miss is the oxygen of publicity they get from the EU parliament elections where they do well.
    Wiltshire is similar - 1 out of 98 unitary councillors. Leave won 52-48 despite being Tory Shire territory.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.

    Would that 102 UKIP MP's up north ?

    I am sure they would be quite happy with say 30 and the balance of power in the next parliament ;)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,251

    HYUFD said:


    Which is why May will not delay negotiations for too long once she becomes, almost certainly, PM in September.

    Surely May wearing a tartan suit has put the issue to bed for a generation?
    At least it shows she's thinking about it.....unlike Michael time to scrap Barnett Gove or Angela I think Barnett a rather common name for hairLeadsom?
  • LowlanderLowlander Posts: 941
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Which is why May will not delay negotiations for too long once she becomes, almost certainly, PM in September.

    Surely May wearing a tartan suit has put the issue to bed for a generation?
    Yes, a clear wink to Scotland, she just needs to go to the Highland Games and eat some haggis and it is all sorted
    And drink some Irn Bru.

    Worked wonders for Jim Murphy.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,807
    @Indigo. No. you didn't miss it and you are correct to point it out. But you did miss the day-in, day-out, antimigrant coverage in the Sun and the Mail, plus the lukewarm face-both-ways-at-once coverage in the Times. And you did miss the regular, well-attended pro-Brexit public meetings around the country. And the coverage in Wetherspoon pubs. And the good-cop-bad-cop VoteLeave/LEAVE.EU tagteam. And so on...

    Your reply demonstrates a common problem with public opinion management: a belief that simply researching the facts and presenting them in reports is sufficient. It just isn't: people have to feel it in their gut, and with UKREF1 they didn't.

    In the 60/70's this was understood, things like the Central Office of Information still existed, and the 1975 campaign was preceded by an approximately six-year softening up campaign that started in the late 60's, stretched across three governments, and cumulated in 1975 in pro-EEC press coverage and a 2-to-1 outcome for STAY.

    In 2016 Cameron thought that all he had to do was tell people the truth as he saw it. It's a hell of a lot more difficult than that.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Are you seriously saying we don't have any methods of measuring the competency of a Home Secretary?

    You might like the shoes, the speeches, and the 'mood'. For me that's an utterly inadequate set of qualifications.

    I'm saying judging the performance of the Home Secretary is far more difficult than any other department.

    Crime Figures (Down but difficult to accurately assess) .. Police Numbers (Down but huge technological changes) .. Terrorist Attacks (Down but does she take the credit).. EU Immigration (Not controllable) :smile: .. MI5. (???????)

    What we may :smile: say is that being a modern Home Secretary for six years is unprecedented and in the context of financial limitations and a usually hostile narrative pervading should be seen as about as positive as any politician might reasonably expect.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    Trump and Clinton invoking BREXIT on the campaign trail. Trump saying he was on the 'right side' standing with the people, Hillary with the elites. Hillary saying Trump said BREXIT was a good thing as it would get more rich people to his golf course and he was not a serious enough figure for the job
  • kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    It's not huge, but there is a clear mandate for Leave. What there is not is a clear mandate against EEA+++ or any other option under the Leave umbrella - all are up for grabs. Some will make a lot of people very angry, but there is not a clear and direct mandate for any option within Leave, only for Leave.
    It's not a clear mandate - if it were an opinion poll it would be within the margin of error
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,251
    Indigo said:

    JackW said:

    The Home Office is about holding it all together now and for the future. That's the policy. Not bean counting the number of NHS operations, employment numbers or solar panels. May is making a virtue of her lack of flamboyance (save shoes .. Mrs JackW approves) in substance and style. It's the correct mood for the times we have ahead.

    Except she didn't
    Oh, the Gove inspired hatchet job by a Murdoch Film Critic even the Telegraph thought better of?

    Case closed, M'Lud.....
  • Serious question - for once. Why is it that with so many northern voters cry out that "the immigrants are taking our jobs" we don't have high levels of unemployment? In fact we have record levels of UK citizens in work than ever in our history?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    ChaosOdin said:

    Aside from brexit issues I think people are becoming irritated by Junkers diplomatic incompetence.

    Interfering with the Scottish situation was clearly out of order for a continent that relies on UK defence and intelligence capability.

    I would guess Juncker will be dispensed with once there is a new UK PM and the negotiations are going to begin in earnest. Not only has he burned all his bridges as any kind of honest broker but his political decapitation will be a nice peace gesture to all sides and sub-factions.

    It was the behaviour of a childish man whose only interest was inflaming the situation. He banned everyone from talking to us, then met up personally with Sturgeon.
    First real politician from UK that he has had to meet with.

    The Scots are very lucky to have Sturgeon. She has played an absolute blinder since the referendum result was announced.

    The Scots, like the rest of us, voted on whether the UNITED KINGDOM should remain in or leave the European Union.

    Scotland voted to remain
    Malc, with respect, what did your ballot paper ask you?
    It was a vote on whether the UK was to REMAIN or LEAVE the EU not a vote about which region of the UK should REMAIN or LEAVE the EU.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    edited July 2016

    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.
    Hi Nick. I have just spent the weekend in WWC Labour Leave country. A few thoughts:

    - those that think the division in the country will soon be brushed away are wrong. Families are divided, and angry with each other for voting the way they did (everyone seems bizarrely keen to say how they voted)

    - neither side wants to back down, but any softening there is seems to be more on the Leave side. There is genuine shock at the effects on the pound and fears of further economic trouble

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum

    Yep, I agree. Labour leavers may abandon Labour at a GE to vote for UKIP, but unlike a referendum they will not be voting on one issue. There is a lot more to it than that, including: do you ant to vote UKIP and make it easier for the Tories to retain power and do you want to vote for a party that is avowedly Thatcherite? Of course, a UKIP vote may be more likely if they felt that Labour had no chance of winning a GE.

    Of the top 5 UKIP target seats 3 are Tory and 2 are Labour, of the top 10 UKIP target seats, 4 are Tory 6 are Labour. Both parties would be hit by a rising UKIP
    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/ukip
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855

    kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    It's not huge, but there is a clear mandate for Leave. What there is not is a clear mandate against EEA+++ or any other option under the Leave umbrella - all are up for grabs. Some will make a lot of people very angry, but there is not a clear and direct mandate for any option within Leave, only for Leave.
    It's not a clear mandate - if it were an opinion poll it would be within the margin of error
    But it's not a poll, it's a vote, so it's clear enough. There is an argument to be had such major changes should require more than 50%+1, but if people were arguing for it before the Act was passed, I didn't notice so it's too late now.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,262

    kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    It's not huge, but there is a clear mandate for Leave. What there is not is a clear mandate against EEA+++ or any other option under the Leave umbrella - all are up for grabs. Some will make a lot of people very angry, but there is not a clear and direct mandate for any option within Leave, only for Leave.
    It's not a clear mandate - if it were an opinion poll it would be within the margin of error
    Oh bugger off. It's not as if Cameron wouldn't have taken it as a licence to continue blithely on with no change in our EU relations whatsoever.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    I think you've misread what was being proposed in that referendum idea - it wouldn't be Leave vs Remain again, but Leave1 vs Leave2 vs Leave 3 etc etc. So why Civil war when leave would still be the outcome?

    Now, I think the idea is hugely problematic

    No shit.

    What happens if we pick Leave 2, and EU says "non!" ?
    It has to be a binary decision - deal or no deal - and so has to be negotiated in advance and then put for ratification
    Why spend 2 years negotiating a deal and then put it to a public vote which might reject it?
    Yes; what is the fall back if the people say 'no'?
    The choice on the ballot is:

    1. Accept the recommended deal
    2. Leave with no deal (ie WTO)

    I want WTO.
    And I want EFTA+EEA provided that there is a sensible adjustment to the FoM rules.

    That's why we need a ratification - if there is any form of FoM then there will a lot of people who will claim that it is outrageous. I don't see any way to unify the majority of the country behind a deal than to have it ratified.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Indigo said:

    I am sure they would be quite happy with say 30 and the balance of power in the next parliament ;)

    That's an awfully sub MikeK projection. Shame on you .. :smiley:

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,855

    Serious question - for once. Why is it that with so many northern voters cry out that "the immigrants are taking our jobs" we don't have high levels of unemployment? In fact we have record levels of UK citizens in work than ever in our history?

    In my experience people are more likely to blame immigration for wages being stagnant or decreasing than they are that actual jobs are being taken (not to say that is not also claimed, but in my experience the wage thing is more criticial).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,807
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    MikeK said:
    THREE-DIMENSIONAL PIE CHART! AAARGH!

    (Sorry. It's a Bad Thing)
    Count yourself lucky they didn't put the annotations in Comic Sans. Unkerned Comic Sans. Oh! The humanity!
    Indeed
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    kle4 said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    I can only speak from personal experience - I live in rural Dorset and UKIP have been around a while. The posters pop up around election time then they disappear again. Local elections they stand in name only, no campaign no effort and the usual suspects garner around 15% of the vote. What they will miss is the oxygen of publicity they get from the EU parliament elections where they do well.
    Wiltshire is similar - 1 out of 98 unitary councillors. Leave won 52-48 despite being Tory Shire territory.
    Did you see any Leave/Remain posters up, where you are? – I’m in Salisbury, but apart from the bumph that cascaded through the letterbox in the final weeks, I saw nothing else.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    The reality is that EEA Scotland within the UK is a far far better deal for Scotland than an 'independent' Scotland as a province of the EU. Sturgeon (great politician) knows this, and her carefully worded statements reflect it.

    The idea of Scotland surrendering newly acquired fisheries and farming rights to the EU for the sake of what boils down to some politically correct posturing would be an extremely hard sell. As would joining the euro. It would be giving up independence gained.

    Indyref 2 campaigners are a useful negotiating tool. It's good for Sturgeon and Scotland that they're there, but they will essentially be marched up and down the hill like The Grand Old Duke of York's 10,000 men. They won't get what they want.

    Lucky, as a dispassionate analysis, I think that is right. But I think that rational analysis is only part of the picture. The Scots have been fed a relentless diet of Independence for a long while now - it has had its affect on the emotional basis of the country, and that will play as great, if not a greater role, in future referenda as the rational analysis.

    This mirrors, of course, British attitudes towards 'independence' from the EU. In that respect, Juncker had something of a point - the steady, relentless anti-EU commentary did eventually change the emotional stance of the nation on EU membership. But he was wrong to attribute this to the UK leadership - to the extent they backed it at all, it was reluctantly and against their own inclinations (or for more limited tactical political considerations) in lagging response to public sentiment. It's easy to blame the Press, but they only do what sells papers, and the anti-EU message wouldn't have sold papers without it resonating. The real motive force was a groundswell of public frustration that the political leadership (both British and EU) failed to respond to in a timely or effective fashion.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited July 2016

    kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    It's not huge, but there is a clear mandate for Leave. What there is not is a clear mandate against EEA+++ or any other option under the Leave umbrella - all are up for grabs. Some will make a lot of people very angry, but there is not a clear and direct mandate for any option within Leave, only for Leave.
    It's not a clear mandate - if it were an opinion poll it would be within the margin of error
    Unlike an opinion poll, in the referendum every qualifying voter was able to vote REMAIN, LEAVE or abstain.

    There is no margin of error.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    No it you spouting garbage. Cameron got 50.1% of the seats in the commons, I didn't hear him saying he better adopt a big chunk of the Labour manifesto to keep the rest of the voters happy. Win is win.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    HYUFD said:

    HaroldO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am trying to get my head around the idea that any serious Tory believes Andrea Leadsom should be the leader of their party and this country's Prime Minister. That is genuinely frightening.

    I'm starting to wonder if she'll make the final two.

    Starting to think whether I should back the final two being May & Crabb at 7/1 and May & Fox at 25/1

    Is there a weight lighter than featherweight?

    Yes, it's called The Burnhamweight

    Ha, ha :-)

    Leadsom is Burnhamweight.

    I think she's sub Burnham.

    That loan to Barings and her past comments on the disaster Brexit would be, would make Burnham blush.

    Time for me write a hatchet job thread on her
    https://twitter.com/andyburnhammp/status/749528430681686016
    Blimey I thought he was dead, probably in hiding as a piece of furniture or somesuch.
    I think he is pretending to be a plant in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
    WTF. MacBeth Gove is a "better person"? What sort of comment is that from the Opposition?
    Read it again. Burnham does not say Gove is the better person. He says he'd rather face Gove.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,410
    Jobabob said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    If Leadsom wins and give Farage any kind of role I'll burn my membership and cancel my direct debit. There is no way I'll ever be in a party which has anything to do with an odious character like that.

    I think the next PM, whoever it is, should get Mr Farage some recognition in the 2019/2020 honours list. We wouldn't have had the referendum without UKIP and Mr Farage.
    Farage will be out of a job as an MEP in a couple of years - I can't see UKIP surviving without him...or indeed with him. The party's finances will fall through the floor and he won't be able to draw his fat MEP salary and expenses after Brexit.

    At a local level UKIP are a reg-bag of oddballs and malcontents held together with a common goal - that's been secured...the adhesive that binds them has gone and so too will the party.
    If May is the next PM the Kippers will be laughing all the way to the polling booth in the North of the country as she opts for EEA+++ and is wide open to accusations that nothing has actually changed despite the clear mandate from the voters.
    There is no clear mandate. You spout utter garbage. 3.8% is a tiny margin.
    Hi Jobabob!

    I see your 3.8% and raise you a 1.2% :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    viewcode said:

    MikeK said:
    THREE-DIMENSIONAL PIE CHART! AAARGH!

    (Sorry. It's a Bad Thing)
    There was a sorry period in my life (when I was still learning the tools of my current trade) where the 'house style' was cyan / 3D pie charts...

    (my team declared UDI shortly after I joined and adopted 2D and dark blue. It took me 3 years to convert the rest of the firm to my colour scheme :) )
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    kle4 said:

    Jobabob said:

    I have to say I feel pretty annoyed at Tony Blair's comment on Sky News that the 48% feel deeply disenfranchised. And is he seriously suggesting that Labour can be the voice of Remain when the party's political backbone - safe seats in former mining and industrial areas voted heavily for Leave.

    Every party was somewhat split, but there isn't any doubt that a large majority of current Labour voters supported Remain, as Blair says. The fact that areas which have traditionally voted Labour voted Leave doesn't alter that. Some of the Leaders are the labour minority and some no longer (if they ever did) support Labour.

    - it is far from certain that WWC Labour Leavers would abandon Labour under a Europhile leader. Much of the Labour vote up here is tribal and they see Europe as a non party political issue, evidenced by the fact that friends and relatives who all vote Labour were often vocal opponents of one another in the referendum
    Good old tribalism to the rescue. It's incredible how strong it is.

    The SNP beat it not just by being there when Labour finally became too rotten to vote for, but also by shifting its pitch and in word (if not in deed) becoming much more left of centre. UKIP is going to face an uphill task in Labour heartlands until it becomes much more fiscally and economically left of centre, and being credible on that switch. Its representatives will need to sound convincing on this. Having a northern accent is not enough.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,725
    HYUFD said:

    Trump and Clinton invoking BREXIT on the campaign trail. Trump saying he was on the 'right side' standing with the people, Hillary with the elites. Hillary saying Trump said BREXIT was a good thing as it would get more rich people to his golf course and he was not a serious enough figure for the job

    Trump also reminded supporters it was the Clintons who tooks the US into NAFTA and allowed China to enter the WTO and steal IP and cheat on its currency. Blames trade with China on trade deficit and the Clintons again for destroying jobs for dealing with S Korea and invokes Sanders who said Clinton trade deals cost US jobs
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016

    Serious question - for once. Why is it that with so many northern voters cry out that "the immigrants are taking our jobs" we don't have high levels of unemployment? In fact we have record levels of UK citizens in work than ever in our history?

    We should remember that we have 1.6 million unemployed. If you read the Guardian pieces pre-referendum, a lot of the complaints were that immigrants were suppressing wages. That seems inarguable.

    We have record employment, true. I haven't drilled down into the figures in any great detail. However, I'd guess there are a lot of part time workers (~8.3 million last time I did look), a lot of bogus self-employed folk struggling by, and a host of minimum wage roles.

    We've developed a really bad managerial view of the world in the last few years. "GDP growth is robust" we chortle. "Look, record employment, pass the marmalade, Amelia". "House prices rising again? Shall we look into another BTL, darling?".

    Prosperity, like the future, is unevenly distributed. Fortunately, we've had our one exercise in direct democracy, so we can go back to ignoring the unfortunates. Did you see US PMIs were very robust this quarter? Marvellous!
This discussion has been closed.