Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
I think it will prove to be something to do with the GFA.
Just on Mr. Stereotomy's point about books: author names absolutely matter.
If I were Dodgy McJailbird I might very well change my name to deed poll to George RR Martin, and it'd help my sales no end. I imagine that's illegal (to deliberately impersonate someone else) but, along with covers, author names are critical for many readers when deciding whether to buy a book.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
Because in a referendum where Leave has a concrete definition (even if the political declaration is somewhat vague), there won't be an obvious way to vote against the government or the status quo.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
Because in a referendum where Leave has a concrete definition (even if the political declaration is somewhat vague), there won't be an obvious way to vote against the government or the status quo.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
So your argument is that any leave campaign would crash and burn?
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
Because in a referendum where Leave has a concrete definition (even if the political declaration is somewhat vague), there won't be an obvious way to vote against the government or the status quo.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
So your argument is that any leave campaign would crash and burn?
Essentially, yes. The different factions can only be held together if Brexit is an abstract concept, not a concrete plan.
Members will soon decide whether to adopt a series of radical reforms, including allowing non-MPs to stand in leadership contests and non-party members vote in them.
So maomentum could end up choosing the Lib Dem leader as well....
Interesting to ask which party is more at risk from a lib dem revival, were it to happen. On the one hand the idea that there are huge numbers of centrist Labour members looking for a new home sounds plausible (though I don't think we've actually seen any evidence for this). On the other hand, IIRC most Lib Dem targets are Tory-facing, Tory Remainers may also be looking for a new home, and there'd be less chance of a Labour split if the Lib Dems were putting up fiercer competition for centrist votes
Sounds like 7th is the date the LibDem commit suicide by opening the leadership up to public vote.
We have entered the world of the absurd now. All three parties could have been swamped by entryists nutters by this time next year.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
I simply do not understand why any book should be censored by political correctness
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
In this case it seems like it was a relatively unknown author. A bit of a paradox if publishing houses only sell books by authors that have previously sold books.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
I simply do not understand why any book should be censored by political correctness
Well, 1) the article wasn't about that, 2) the article should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt anyway because it was basically a third-hand retelling, tailored to raise the author's profile by appealing to the spectator's audience, 3) because publishers are private businesses who will pursue their bottom line
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
In this case it seems like it was a relatively unknown author. A bit of a paradox if publishing houses only sell books by authors that have previously sold books.
Sure. I guess I got side-tracked away from the original case by Andy's weird question. See my last post for my thoughts on this particular case
O/T "I got some bad news this week. I discovered that I’m a ‘privileged, white male’. It was my agent who broke it to me. We were talking about the trouble he’s having in finding a publisher for my book — a work of non-fiction — when the following exchange took place. Me: What’s wrong with my book? Agent: There’s nothing wrong with your book. It’s brilliant. It’s moving. It’s funny. Me: OK. So what’s the problem? Agent: You’re the problem. Me: Excuse me? Agent: You’re a middle-aged, privileged white man. You’re out of fashion — and so is your book. Publishers think you’re too male. Too white. Things are difficult for writers like you at the moment." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/stop-calling-me-a-privileged-white-man-im-more-than-that/
My heart bleeds
Do you think a book should be judged by who wrote it rather than its contents?
You do understand that a book is purchased -before- being read rather than afterwards, right? Are you honestly telling me that the author of a book doesn't play a part in whether or not you buy it?
Isn't that like saying what someone says should be judged on who they are, not what they say?
No. I'm taking about something very specific to buying books. For example, if you know you've enjoyed an author's previous books, you're more likely to buy their next one. I don't think this is particularly controversial
I simply do not understand why any book should be censored by political correctness
It's just business. As Tim Waterstone would tell you, there is a glut of books published in the UK each year. Marketing is important in order to differentiate *this* sensitive examination of the heartache of a middle-class Remainer surrounded by racist plebeians from *that* one.
Sean actually switched genres based on a ruthless assessment of the market size for different genre offerings.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
So your argument is that any leave campaign would crash and burn?
Essentially, yes. The different factions can only be held together if Brexit is an abstract concept, not a concrete plan.
Even if it was Chequers vs Remain, I doubt Farage would be calling for abstention knowing that would lead to Remain winning.
I'm not saying he'd be calling for it, just that his interventions would not motivate people to vote Leave.
I think 'if you don't vote leave, we'll be stuck in the EU forever' would be a pretty powerful message to Leave voters (and maybe some of the more fanatic Euro federalists )
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
Because in a referendum where Leave has a concrete definition (even if the political declaration is somewhat vague), there won't be an obvious way to vote against the government or the status quo.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
And so the same old stale debate goes on and we are led to believe that the Chequer's deal is only agreed by 11% when nobody has any clue what the final Chequers deal will look like
It would be surprising if there had not been a move towards remain with all the negativity but using polls to argue one side or the other is wasted energy until we hear finally from TM sometime late this Autumn.
I am sitting on the fence and protecting my piece of mind while looking on in wonder as each side just repeats and repeats it's own position
I presume seanT choose a female ghost name for his mega successful series of books for a reason, rather than writing under his own name.
I seem to recall he concocted some xx chromosome biographical guff for her, but S.K.Tremayne is pretty gender neutral on a cover. Slightly interestingly, on the default Google info sidebar it comes up as a novel by Tom Knox with a Google search
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
And, er, why do you think that?
Firstly for May to do that she'd need the backing of the cabinet. I'm envisioning a set piece speech in Downing Street following a cabinet meeting like when she called the election. It would immediately electrify the political scene with blanket media coverage. MPs from all parties would be backing the decision and Corbyn would be put on the spot to support it too. If it's clear that there is a majority in parliament, and snap polls suggest the public back May, then removing her would be futile since one way or another, a second referendum would have to happen.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
And, er, why do you think that?
Firstly for May to do that she'd need the backing of the cabinet. I'm envisioning a set piece speech in Downing Street following a cabinet meeting like when she called the election. It would immediately electrify the political scene with blanket media coverage. MPs from all parties would be backing the decision and Corbyn would be put on the spot to support it too. If it's clear that there is a majority in parliament, and snap polls suggest the public back May, then removing her would be futile since one way or another, a second referendum would have to happen.
Why are we always looking at these numbers about whether brexit was a mistake? The question that matters is whether we should seek to reverse it. Why look at this indirect signifier when we can just ask directly?
Because the Remoaners sponsoring the polls know they’ll not like the results.
So why do we hear so much about them on this site?
Maybe I'm terribly naive, but this site is called political betting. The whole appeal for me is the idea that when people have skin in the game, they're more motivated to try to make accurate predictions. But almost all I see here is spin, which is antithetical to making good predictions. Does anybody- and I mean anybody- care about actually estimating the chance of, say, a second referendum so they can make some money betting, more than they care about cheerleading their preferred outcome?
IMO there’s no chance of a second referendum being proposed by this Parliament. If Mrs May tries it she’ll be deposed immediately.
As we've discussed before, deposing her immediately isn't possible, but what would be immediate is a switch in the political dynamics and a second referendum would instantly become inevitable. From that moment it would no longer be politically possible to depose May and impose a Brexit deal without one.
You don't think they'd get enough votes for no confidence? I think a lot of Tory MPs beyond the ERG would think that a second referendum would be a complete catastrophe
I think the shift in the political environment would happen so fast that a vote of no confidence in May would become pointless. Even if they got the numbers for a vote I think it would be clear that deposing May in order to avoid offering people another say would be politically suicidal for the party and she would win comfortably.
And, er, why do you think that?
Make believe
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
No, you said it was a more helpful way of thinking about it. I don't think that's the case since a lot of things need to happen for a referendum to occur, not that things need to happen to stop it occurring.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
No, you said it was a more helpful way of thinking about it. I don't think that's the case since a lot of things need to happen for a referendum to occur, not that things need to happen to stop it occurring.
To put it another way, on paper the default is that we exit with no deal, but in practice there are so many obstacles in the way of that actually happening that I think it can be discounted.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
No, you said it was a more helpful way of thinking about it. I don't think that's the case since a lot of things need to happen for a referendum to occur, not that things need to happen to stop it occurring.
To put it another way, on paper the default is that we exit with no deal, but in practice there are so many obstacles in the way of that actually happening that I think it can be discounted.
I'm not sure how that makes a referendum the default outcome.
Mr. Glenn, I'd be wary of that line of thinking. Hitler was surprised the UK didn't come to terms after France fell. Stalin was surprised by the German invasion. The First Crusade actually succeeded. Lots of things that seem unthinkable or 'shouldn't' happen do.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
No, you said it was a more helpful way of thinking about it. I don't think that's the case since a lot of things need to happen for a referendum to occur, not that things need to happen to stop it occurring.
To put it another way, on paper the default is that we exit with no deal, but in practice there are so many obstacles in the way of that actually happening that I think it can be discounted.
I'm not sure how that makes a referendum the default outcome.
I'm saying there is no default outcome in practice, so it can be a useful device to treat whichever outcome under consideration as the default and then think about what would need to happen to prevent it.
Mr. Glenn, I'd be wary of that line of thinking. Hitler was surprised the UK didn't come to terms after France fell. Stalin was surprised by the German invasion. The First Crusade actually succeeded. Lots of things that seem unthinkable or 'shouldn't' happen do.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say phere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second refere same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
Because in a referendum where Leave has a concrete definition (even if the political declaration is somewhat vague), there won't be an obvious way to vote against the government or the status quo.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
How does a Chequers Deal v Remain referendum option get through Parliament with the ERG and Labour Leavers demanding a No Deal option and Tory backbenchers potentially toppling May as Tory leader and PM if she agrees to it?
The only referendum option May and Tory backbenchers would agreed to is Chequers Deal v No Deal and even then May would only do so if Corbyn and the ERG refused to pass a Deal with the EU based on Chequers Deal terms through Parliament and the LDs and SNP and pro EEA Labour backbenchers like Umunna also refused to support it
Mr. Glenn, I'd be wary of that line of thinking. Hitler was surprised the UK didn't come to terms after France fell. Stalin was surprised by the German invasion. The First Crusade actually succeeded. Lots of things that seem unthinkable or 'shouldn't' happen do.
How does a Chequers Deal v Remain referendum option get through Parliament with the ERG and Labour Leavers demanding a No Deal option and Tory backbenchers potentially toppling May as Tory leader and PM if she agrees to it?
Public opinion still needs to shift a bit for it to be viable, so a lot hinges on how people respond to the threat of no deal as the tension rises.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
What makes you so sure?
I think it will prove to be something to do with the GFA.
Something to do with the spirit of the GFA I think you will find.
Attempting to get them to cite sources from the actual text have been fruitless.
Mr. Glenn, I'd be wary of that line of thinking. Hitler was surprised the UK didn't come to terms after France fell. Stalin was surprised by the German invasion. The First Crusade actually succeeded. Lots of things that seem unthinkable or 'shouldn't' happen do.
Can't you think of any more recent examples?
Leicester winning the Premiership?
The look on David Miliband's face when his brother beat him?
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
You wanna be Brussels' bitch? Like, for ever?
Will last longer than a week.
That will be a good Remain slogan against Vassal State Brexit.
Well, it could happen. I just don't see why it should, even after William clicks his ruby slippers together three times.
The alternative is either a leadership challenge or a pitched battle in which Corbyn says the six tests have been failed and sets about using it to bring down the government. If as is likely, the backstop isn't fudged May might not even be able to rely on the DUP.
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
Doesn't that imply that a referendum is the default option, and that it must be actively prevented? I don't think that is the case.
It's just a different way of thinking about it. One way or another something that seems implausible now is actually going to happen, so we can't dismiss options purely on the grounds that they seem unlikely.
No, you said it was a more helpful way of thinking about it. I don't think that's the case since a lot of things need to happen for a referendum to occur, not that things need to happen to stop it occurring.
To put it another way, on paper the default is that we exit with no deal, but in practice there are so many obstacles in the way of that actually happening that I think it can be discounted.
All that has to happen for exit with no deal is....nothing.
No action required.
Just a continuation of what has been happening for 2 years.
Given the shit they get heaped on them by the Remainers, is it surprising that plenty of Leavers just keep ther heads down and say nothing to no-one on Brexit? Even on here, you need the hide of a rhino to admit to voting Brexit.
But shy Brexiteers stalk the land. Try taking it away from them to see how many there are.....
Yes and as I have said before the refusal to listen to the message sent by the 2016 referendum result could I am afraid to say unleash some very nasty forces indeed if Remain scrapes a win in a second EU referendum
If Remain lost again, do you think they would finally STFU?
I have severe doubts.
Nope a second referendum would solve little
If anyone thinks the last three years in politics have been divisive, asking the same question again of the electorate will massively increase the division within society.
The context is different now than it was in 2016. Gove and Johnson can no longer say that a vote to Leave will cause a domino effect that will bring down the EU, because we have agreed to a process that will end with a deal on the EU's terms.
Now the choice will clearly be between different kinds of relationship with the EU: either membership with a say, or a peripheral relationship in the EU's sphere of influence.
The Leave campaign of a second referendum will be all about democracy. The people have told the elites to leave the EU once already, why are we being asked the same question again?
A campaign based on that message would crash and burn within a week.
You wanna be Brussels' bitch? Like, for ever?
Will last longer than a week.
That will be a good Remain slogan against Vassal State Brexit.
It's multi-purpose.....
But for vassal state, it requires the image of the gimp from Pulp Fiction too.
How does a Chequers Deal v Remain referendum option get through Parliament with the ERG and Labour Leavers demanding a No Deal option and Tory backbenchers potentially toppling May as Tory leader and PM if she agrees to it?
Public opinion still needs to shift a bit for it to be viable, so a lot hinges on how people respond to the threat of no deal as the tension rises.
Public opinion would make no difference, the ERG will always demand a No Deal option.
Plus almost a third of voters at least back No Deal Brexit even given the alternative of Chequers alongside Remain
1) Owen Jones is not a journalist, any more than I am. 2) He, and Jeremy Corbyn, are unquestionably right about the very limited social set from which far too many journalists come, and watching them close ranks in the face of criticism is unedifying. 3) Newspapers are in a death spiral. Now is not the time for more onerous regulation. It’s missing the main target anyway, which is the online providers of news.
My thoughts exactly. Great post.
1 and 2 are right.
On 3 he’s completely wrong. Newspapers are absolutely the main target. The more successful online news purveyors tend to be more biased to the left than newspapers.
Why attack your friends - better to kick your enemy when he’s down
1) Owen Jones is not a journalist, any more than I am. 2) He, and Jeremy Corbyn, are unquestionably right about the very limited social set from which far too many journalists come, and watching them close ranks in the face of criticism is unedifying. 3) Newspapers are in a death spiral. Now is not the time for more onerous regulation. It’s missing the main target anyway, which is the online providers of news.
My thoughts exactly. Great post.
1 and 2 are right.
On 3 he’s completely wrong. Newspapers are absolutely the main target. The more successful online news purveyors tend to be more biased to the left than newspapers.
Why attack your friends - better to kick your enemy when he’s down
I know I harp on about bad luck this year, but it's justified.
Backed Raikkonen to be top 2. He was looking good for that. Then it started to rain. No matter, he was fastest. Then he came into the pits. It started drying out. He finished nowhere, and had no chance to improve.
......
You do deserve a degree of sympathy, but I’ve observed before that betting against Hamilton if there’s a prospect of rain has not proved a good way to make money for the last few seasons....
There may be yet another mini-Trump running around....
A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.
... There was bright sunshine ten minutes after qualifying.
The reason Raikkonen was initially quickest in the wet was precisely because Ferrari got him straight back out on intermediates without putting in enough fuel to run to the end of Q3. A gamble in itself. (And in any event, Hamilton was within a tenth or so in the dry, so doubly dangerous.)
... There was bright sunshine ten minutes after qualifying.
The reason Raikkonen was initially quickest in the wet was precisely because Ferrari got him straight back out on intermediates without putting in enough fuel to run to the end of Q3. A gamble in itself. (And in any event, Hamilton was within a tenth or so in the dry, so doubly dangerous.)
Was just watching Grand Prix: The Killer Years. Jackie Stewart was remembering his infamous crash at Spa in 1968(?) when he started the race in the dry and by the fourth corner there was standing water on the track.
Mr. B, to an extent, I'm glad it's happening now rather than my first year of trying to bet. Had time to build up a little account, and to get used to the turbulent squalls on the stormy seas of gambling.
... There was bright sunshine ten minutes after qualifying.
The reason Raikkonen was initially quickest in the wet was precisely because Ferrari got him straight back out on intermediates without putting in enough fuel to run to the end of Q3. A gamble in itself. (And in any event, Hamilton was within a tenth or so in the dry, so doubly dangerous.)
Spa has always had its own weather system, completely detached from the local area and frequently covering half the track in rain while leaving the other half dry. I bet on Lewis for Q3 purely because Mercedes put Bottas though Q2, and got lucky when it rained.
Mr. Sandpit, if you hear the sound of a giant land-walking superfish splintering your door as if it were matchwood and clambering up your stairs, do not be alarmed.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
There may be yet another mini-Trump running around....
A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
So there’s a huge amount of context to his comments, as expected. What he’s talking about is an electronic border with random spot checks by local police and customs away from the actual border. Something that’s fine by everyone except the remainers.
Something that’s ruled out by the EU Withdrawal Act and not “fine” by anyone who’s thought about it.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
The Irish Times has an article stating that the UK has told Ireland we will not build a hard border i.e physical not electronic under any circumstance. It also states that the EU and Ireland are currently trying to devise a solution that is acceptable to the UK. Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade. Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice. Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Won't give the full list but the two late additions were in the Betting Without Hamilton and Vettel market, in which I backed Ricciardo and Bottas each way (fifth the odds top 3) at 7.5 and 9. That's to be, presuming no top DNFs, top 5.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Steve Bannon is not stupid and deluded enough to actually believe that, but is trying to get Republicans to the polls. Nor is Bannon stupid and deluded enough to not appreciate in the same statement he’s encouraging democrats and independents out to the polls for the impeachment. LOL
Maybe he just likes the sound of his own voice and incapable of taking a holiday.
The likes of Nick Griffin overtly supporting Corbyn on antisemitism could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back among moderate Labour MPs.
Don’t be silly. The problem is what is left of the moderate MPs, most of the leading ones are totally wets. If chuka umunna was leading you into battle I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find just as everybody charges forward, he instantly turned about face and ran away.
The only one with some guts is mrs cooper balls.
What evidence of her having some guts has there been over, say, the last three years? She’s been largely invisible.
The third time I have posted the same thing more or less, so I apologise in advance....
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Beyond Farage, who hasn't gone anywhere, who are 'they'?
I guess the same people who they were before.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Your hypothesis is that if there were another referendum, UKIP would become more prominent. Suppose it's true. It's possible that it will have a negative effect, as people look at them and think, "You told us leaving the EU was a good idea and look what a mess it turned into."
Anything is possible. Don't factor it in if you don't want to, just listen to yourself.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
Interesting Irish view on the NI backstop and what it means for Ireland where there is no deal. People, including Dominic Raab last week, assume the EU will agree mitigating action because it is so hugely in its interest to avoid big damage. This is likely but it the EU is unlikely to say, since it's no deal we might as well permanently settle the arrangements. Its mitigation will almost certainly be the least, for the shortest time and to its greatest relative advantage that it can get away with. It will drive to settle the Withdrawal Agreement for every bit of mitigation it discusses with the UK. The WA is a list of things the EU wants - money, retained residence for nationals and the NI backstop. The last will be at the top of the list because it's the only major thing that hasn't already been agreed.
In summary there's a very high probability of the UK agreeing the NI backstop sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later. It could be grim for Ireland and the UK before it does so, however.
Comments
If I were Dodgy McJailbird I might very well change my name to deed poll to George RR Martin, and it'd help my sales no end. I imagine that's illegal (to deliberately impersonate someone else) but, along with covers, author names are critical for many readers when deciding whether to buy a book.
If you want to express anger at being asked again do you vote for Chequers or just not vote? The likes of Farage will be saying the whole thing is a stitch up which will make if very difficult for advocates of the Chequers plan to get a hearing.
series of books for a reason, rather than writing under his own name.
We have entered the world of the absurd now. All three parties could have been swamped by entryists nutters by this time next year.
Boaty McBoatface.
Mr. D, big publishers are very conservative. Or so I hear.
Sean actually switched genres based on a ruthless assessment of the market size for different genre offerings.
Slightly interestingly, on the default Google info sidebar it comes up as a novel by Tom Knox with a Google search
Rather than thinking about the probability of there being a second referendum, I think it's more helpful to look at the various things that would need to happen in order for there not to be one, and work out how likely they are.
I could've gone with Croesus' attack on Persia, or Xerxes' failed attack on Greece.
The only referendum option May and Tory backbenchers would agreed to is Chequers Deal v No Deal and even then May would only do so if Corbyn and the ERG refused to pass a Deal with the EU based on Chequers Deal terms through Parliament and the LDs and SNP and pro EEA Labour backbenchers like Umunna also refused to support it
But we surely don't need to go back so far to come up with some things that were never supposed to happen.
Trump not being hopelessly creepy and stupid?
Au contraire, the fullest and longest view of history is best, to learn more from history and avoid as many pitfalls as possible.
But then I thought that would just be silly.
Will last longer than a week.
Attempting to get them to cite sources from the actual text have been fruitless.
We need to get Callum Ferguson for that to happen I think, but it's not over yet.
No action required.
Just a continuation of what has been happening for 2 years.
But for vassal state, it requires the image of the gimp from Pulp Fiction too.
Plus almost a third of voters at least back No Deal Brexit even given the alternative of Chequers alongside Remain
On 3 he’s completely wrong. Newspapers are absolutely the main target. The more successful online news purveyors tend to be more biased to the left than newspapers.
Why attack your friends - better to kick your enemy when he’s down
On 3 he’s completely wrong. Newspapers are absolutely the main target. The more successful online news purveyors tend to be more biased to the left than newspapers.
Why attack your friends - better to kick your enemy when he’s down
http://nottonightgame.com/
A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-tower-doorman-contract-ami/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45308468
After the no-deal Brexit horror show – what if there is a deal after all?
Just suppose – an outlandish thought I know – that Theresa May came back from Brussels with an agreement
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-latest-leave-eu-theresa-may-trade-negotiations-a8507706.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true
... There was bright sunshine ten minutes after qualifying.
The reason Raikkonen was initially quickest in the wet was precisely because Ferrari got him straight back out on intermediates without putting in enough fuel to run to the end of Q3. A gamble in itself.
(And in any event, Hamilton was within a tenth or so in the dry, so doubly dangerous.)
Just watch out for ladders, and felines of darker hue.
The NI border is exclusively an EU problem, because they have their own fixed view of what a border looks like. Mr Raab was quite clear the other day that the UK has no intention of doing anything about a border, if there’s no deal it’s going to be a great conversation between Junker and Varakdar as to who should resign first, because we all know that there’s no chance of a border actually being constructed.
I wondered who would be the first PB Brexiteer to try and explain to JRM that he doesn't understand Brexit...
Classic among them no border in Ireland, border between UK and RoI, no border NI to UK but a border only in the UK for UK to NI trade.
Then if the border guards and customs do not wear EU uniforms and work for a private contractor then it can not be classed as an EU border and the Brits will not notice.
Seems to me the Irish and the EU have dug a massive hole they can not get off.
At the time of the referendum, UKIP were polling 18-19%. They are now not even quoted by the pollsters. If there were another referendum they would become prominent again. It is up to the reader to decide whether that would make a difference or not, but it is worth bearing in mind when reading polls such as the one in the header.
Betting PostF1: may wish to decrease stakes because I've offered 4 or 6 tips, depending whether you do as I did and pair up (half-stakes) some of them:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/08/belgium-pre-race-2018.html
Won't give the full list but the two late additions were in the Betting Without Hamilton and Vettel market, in which I backed Ricciardo and Bottas each way (fifth the odds top 3) at 7.5 and 9. That's to be, presuming no top DNFs, top 5.
When scientists make experiments, they try everything in their power to falsify their hypothesis. A strange phenomenon in political analysis seems to be that people do everything they can to ignore any problem with their hypothesis, while claiming academic rigour.. very odd
Maybe he just likes the sound of his own voice and incapable of taking a holiday.
Not a week ago you were rubbishing DeltaPoll, and ridiculing their main man Martin Boon when a poll of theirs didn't fit your narrative. A couple of days later you were citing their polling to back up an argument you wanted to make. That is bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Now you are defensive when someone points out a possible flaw in a poll you like. You should welcome the input if what you are interested in is the truth, rather than winning an argument or pushing a narrative
In summary there's a very high probability of the UK agreeing the NI backstop sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later. It could be grim for Ireland and the UK before it does so, however.
https://twitter.com/KeohaneDan/status/1033217745096269825
(I was going to mention DC Fontana, but that's too nerdy even by my standards)