Wrong, no alternative leader polls any better than May and most poll worse.
That means very little though, it's exactly what you expect from name recognition and incumbency bonus alone.
As for who the Parliamentary party prefers to be Tory leader, I doubt we have long to wait to find out. And amongst the membership, Boris is far and away the winner.
I can't wait to see what machinations the Party is going to put in place to make sure Boris never gets put to the membership.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
A deal vs. Norway option is an option. No deal can't be listed though.
If May wants to stop the vote for next Tuesday then they’ll have to put down a motion . Which then could be amendable ! The debate has already started , you can’t just stop the vote unless MPs agree . Bear in mind even if the vote doesn’t happen and the government brings in something else to be voted on the Grieve amendment stands in the event of no deal being agreed . Even though it was an amendment to the current programme of business motion it doesn’t end with that .
The ERG have been in desperate spin mode to say Grieves amendment doesn’t change things . No government can plow on with a course of action if a majority of MPs instruct them not to .
May being ousted and being forced to resign can’t happen soon enough. She has been a total disaster ever she called the 2017 general election and is now, in my opinion anyway, the worst Troy PM post 1945 - even worse than Eden or Heath.
I disagree totally with Dominic Grieve’s position on Brexit but he is the only one to come out of the Brexit debates with any credit because he is the only one who has thought through his approach and applied that to his actions. May has just capitulated to the EU without negotiating anything rather like Cameron over the EU budget and then the pre referendum renegotiation; most Tory MPs have followed her like lemmings whilst the Brexit supporters have betrayed their cause by failing to put in the hard yards to come up with any credible plan at any stage.
I desperately want Brexit to happen and not because of immigration but it’s going to be betrayed by a supine Parliament with a Remain majority who don’t believe in it and are scared of it.
Labour look nailed on favourites to be in power early next year but ditching May at least gives the Tories a fighting chance of stopping them - if they pick the right leader.
Wrong, no alternative leader polls any better than May and most poll worse.
No current poll gives a Labour majority, including Survation
May lost a 20% lead in the polls in a campaign that showed her totally devoid of charisma or policies. She only kept her job because Ruth Davidson led a Tory revival in Scotland which had nothing to do with May. Her polls even now compared to others are only superficially good because of name recognition.
My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy
Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
The non DUP Northern Ireland voice is almost entirely absent from parliament, however it is more supportive than not of May (Hermon, SDLP, Sinn Fein!). Not sure about the UUP.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
A deal vs. Norway option is an option. No deal can't be listed though.
Why not? Because you don't like it? The fact is that 30% or so of those polled say they do like it.
Now your choice seems the perfect one to me but I am not representative of millions of Leave voters out there who would rightly feel cheated if No Deal was not on the ballot.
I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.
Quite. Plus almost every MP is opposed. No Deal can't be on the ballot.
Deal can't be on there either. Parliament would have already pronounced it unacceptable, it's way too complex for the public, and it does not define the future relationship. We don't discover what leave means until we leave.
Which leaves Remain. And a single option ballot is a bit iffy so we're stuck.
No, 2nd ref not a runner. Parliament should implement or cancel. Man up parliament.
So - how about this? - we leave, negotiate the future relationship, live with it for a few years and then rejoin if it's all gone pear, which it probably will do. Not with a referendum obviously, once bitten twice shy, but via a party winning a GE with rejoin in its manifesto. British democracy at its finest.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
Wrong, 70% of Remain voters would vote for the Deal over No Deal with Yougov
That's in a situation where they've already had the opportunity to express their view. What I'm talking about is what would happen if you deliberately tried to exclude the view of half the electorate entirely by not allowing remain to be a choice.
I confidently predict a popular movement of vindictive-remainers-for-no-deal would be born.
Which is rubbish, bar a few obsessives in Islington and Oxford most Remainers especially in the business community would vote for the Deal over No Deal, what they want is economic stability they are not ideological obsessives for the UK to be part of a Federal EU.
Remain had its chance in 2016. Remain lost. What needs to be decided is how we Leave
New First Minister Mark Drakeford is an absolute Corbynite spanner!
Lets see how a dose of Corbynite "loonacy" goes down in Wales.. A Welsh poll in a few months will be interesting/
Poor Wales - he is useless beyond useless
His big ideas are no smoking in town centres, government-funded baby showers and extra solar panels to catch the sunlight from Corbyn's arse.
He even makes Alun Michael look good, and that's something I never thought I would say.
Alun Michael is a political titan compared to Mr Drakeford!
Steady on. I mean, there are limits.
Edit - my favourite Alun Michael anecdote is when my father came back from a meeting with him in a vile temper, threw his coat on the table and shouted loudly, 'No wonder Charles talks to his f***ing trees instead of his f***ing First Minister. He'd get much more f***ing SENSE out of them.'
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not
Clarke has already said he would back the Deal and Field, Mann, Skinner, Stringer and Hoey would vote for Deal v No Deal anyway, cancelling out the above
He has said he would back the Deal. He has not said that he would back a Deal v No Deal referendum. You've pulled that out of your own backside.
The non DUP Northern Ireland voice is almost entirely absent from parliament, however it is more supportive than not of May (Hermon, SDLP, Sinn Fein!). Not sure about the UUP.
Also remember, the DUP never signed the 1998 Belfast agreement.
And we have a new nomination for most unselfaware post of 2018...
Really is it necessary to make the same "joke" ever time you see me? I got it the first time you tedious bore.
And another!
Hey, you're perfectly entitled to not like me, knock yourself out. It's just that... If you're going to insult me, at least do it with some finesse. It just seems that I've seen that same tetchy little snipe about four times, and frankly I'm over it.
My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy
Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
I am 75 and my wife is 79 and your comments like 'readers dropping dead' and your general lack of respect for our age group does cause concern
And we have a new nomination for most unselfaware post of 2018...
Really is it necessary to make the same "joke" ever time you see me? I got it the first time you tedious bore.
And another!
Hey, you're perfectly entitled to not like me, knock yourself out. It's just that... If you're going to insult me, at least do it with some finesse. It just seems that I've seen that same tetchy little snipe about four times, and frankly I'm over it.
Try harder.
You are asking someone else to show more finesse in their insults?
Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner.
Edit - to be quite honest, I tend not to read your posts. They have neither facts, nor sense, and only a shaky grasp of reality. You also express yourself in an unpleasant way towards just about everybody. But sometimes it's quite fun just to get you to display how incredibly unpleasant and unselfaware you are. It's a bit like trolling Hyufd, although while Hyufd's comments do border on the bizarre there is at least a basic intelligence there and he's usually reasonably civil.
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
A deal vs. Norway option is an option. No deal can't be listed though.
Why not? Because you don't like it? The fact is that 30% or so of those polled say they do like it.
Now your choice seems the perfect one to me but I am not representative of millions of Leave voters out there who would rightly feel cheated if No Deal was not on the ballot.
By definition no deal is not a deal, which is inherently non-sustainable. Therefore it is a vote to have to negotiate a deal, in chaos, on an unplanned basis. That would be a deeply irresponsible approach.
I also think - on that basis - having no deal would meas you need remain on the ballot as well. People didn't vote to remain, but they didn't vote for a no deal either; and you are offering two "leave" options with Norway vs. the TM deal.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
DUP won't vote for deal being an option.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain
Ken Clarke backs the Deal, he opposes No Deal. DUP oppose the Deal.
You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.
You can quite easily, indeed the DUP hate Remain just as much as the Deal. Though even without the DUP virtually all Tories and enough Labour Leave MPs would give a Deal v No Deal referendum a majority
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
Wrong, 70% of Remain voters would vote for the Deal over No Deal with Yougov
That's in a situation where they've already had the opportunity to express their view. What I'm talking about is what would happen if you deliberately tried to exclude the view of half the electorate entirely by not allowing remain to be a choice.
I confidently predict a popular movement of vindictive-remainers-for-no-deal would be born.
Which is rubbish, bar a few obsessives in Islington and Oxford most Remainers especially in the business community would vote for the Deal over No Deal, what they want is economic stability they are not ideological obsessives for the UK to be part of a Federal EU.
Remain had its chance in 2016. Remain lost. What needs to be decided is how we Leave
You presume people pay attention. For many (most?) people, they'll be picking up what's going on from the media, and a fair proportion will (for instance) see 'no deal' as the status quo, or 'the deal' as 'remain'.
There's a hell of a lot of partial or inaccurate information out there, even for us political obsessives. Most people can't be arsed going through the details, and will go with whoever they instinctively trust to tell them the truth (where the 'truth' is what best fits their world view, as uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable).
My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy
Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
I am 75 and my wife is 79 and your comments like 'readers dropping dead' and your general lack of respect for our age group does cause concern
No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .
The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
DUP won't vote for deal being an option.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain
Ken Clarke backs the Deal, he opposes No Deal. DUP oppose the Deal.
You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.
You can quite easily, indeed the DUP hate Remain just as much as the Deal. Though even without the DUP virtually all Tories and enough Labour Leave MPs would give a Deal v No Deal referendum a majority
No you can't. At the moment MPs can try and oppose what they oppose in Parliament. Throw it to the public and its a lottery what the public chooses.
Not "virtually all Tories" will back a Dead v No Deal referendum. Please quote Clarke saying he thinks it is a good idea. I think he'd find it a terrible idea actually.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not
Clarke has already said he would back the Deal and Field, Mann, Skinner, Stringer and Hoey would vote for Deal v No Deal anyway, cancelling out the above
He has said he would back the Deal. He has not said that he would back a Deal v No Deal referendum. You've pulled that out of your own backside.
Yougov has Remain 50% Deal 50% if that was the result it solves NOTHING.
Yougov has Remain 52% No Deal 48% if that was the result it also effectively solves NOTHING, especially as Deltapoll has it Remain 48% No Deal 52%.
Yougov has it Deal 62% No Deal 38%, Deltapoll also has Deal ahead of No Deal by double figures. That is the ONLY choice which may give the clear result to resolve Brexit.
Even Clarke has switched to the Deal as a sensible compromise
No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .
The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
A deal vs. Norway option is an option. No deal can't be listed though.
Why not? Because you don't like it? The fact is that 30% or so of those polled say they do like it.
Now your choice seems the perfect one to me but I am not representative of millions of Leave voters out there who would rightly feel cheated if No Deal was not on the ballot.
By definition no deal is not a deal, which is inherently non-sustainable. Therefore it is a vote to have to negotiate a deal, in chaos, on an unplanned basis. That would be a deeply irresponsible approach.
I also think - on that basis - having no deal would meas you need remain on the ballot as well. People didn't vote to remain, but they didn't vote for a no deal either; and you are offering two "leave" options with Norway vs. the TM deal.
But they would not be voting 'for a deal' they would be voting for an outcome. Leave with a deal or leave without a deal. It is a perfectly valid question and would satisfy the instructions given by the public at the first referendum. It also has the added bonus that both options actually exist. The Norway option - much as I would prefer it - is not something it is within our power to deliver without an external agreement which may very well not be forthcoming. SO you would be asking people to vote for an option it might be impossible to deliver.
Quick scan of this thread. At least a dozen (!) different proposals as to what a 2nd referendum ballot paper would need to have on it and what counting technique would be most appropriate. And this is a community of highly intelligent & politically savvy people. See what I mean? 2nd ref. Not happening.
Also remember, the DUP never signed the 1998 Belfast agreement.
One of the reasons we are in the current predicament is the Conservaqtive obsession with the Union and Unionism. As it now appears, they are the only ones who care - the rest of su want something different and modern and indeed that includes treating NI separate from the rest of the UK.
Again, a lot of people seem fairly relaxed about it - except of course the Conservative and Unionist Party who want to see us all suffer to protect "our precious union".
My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy
Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
I am 75 and my wife is 79 and your comments like 'readers dropping dead' and your general lack of respect for our age group does cause concern
No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .
The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !
I imagine they'd have to firm up a more specific definition of what "No Deal" means. They probably wouldn't use that term on the ballot.
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.
Also remember, the DUP never signed the 1998 Belfast agreement.
One of the reasons we are in the current predicament is the Conservaqtive obsession with the Union and Unionism. As it now appears, they are the only ones who care - the rest of su want something different and modern and indeed that includes treating NI separate from the rest of the UK.
Again, a lot of people seem fairly relaxed about it - except of course the Conservative and Unionist Party who want to see us all suffer to protect "our precious union".
As long as it was agreed by the majority in NI (and the Irish as well since they would be taking on the burden) I would see reunification as a positive outcome of Brexit.
My wife reads the daily mail and your connection with daily mail readers being old and the old dying is nasty and unnecessary
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy
Once again, I repeat that my statement is entirely true. The Mail's readership is elderly, and its rapid rate of decline is almost entirely consistent with its readers dropping dead, as is the wont of the elderly.
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
I am 75 and my wife is 79 and your comments like 'readers dropping dead' and your general lack of respect for our age group does cause concern
Quick scan of this thread. At least a dozen (!) different proposals as to what a 2nd referendum ballot paper would need to have on it and what counting technique would be most appropriate. And this is a community of highly intelligent & politically savvy people. See what I mean? 2nd ref. Not happening.
I think we should have a referendum to choose the question, and then another to choose the method. These should obviously be conducted by AV.
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.
To be fair they're generally talking over a much longer timescale where, yes, significant numbers of people do either die or come of age.
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.
Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
No government even this inept one would allow no deal on the ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t sanction that anyway . You can’t tie the hands of the government , in effect you’d be telling them to not do any deals to mitigate the chaos . And how exactly would you enforce this , will people riot to stop the government from making a deal to bring medicines into the country .
The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !
Of course the EC would sanction it. And your interpretation of No Deal seems to be particularly 'unique'.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.
Its a similar mistake but not that bad. The mistake regarding Tories/Brexit is that many of today's young left-wing will be tomorrow's right-wing. The population turning right as they age replenishes and negates any morbidity impact.
Today's non-newspaper readers are however unlikely to evolve to be tomorrow's newspaper readers. So the morbidity impact won't be negated in full. However morbidity even amongst the elderly is not that high.
Readership levels are falling because former readers are now choosing not to read a paper anymore. Not because they're dead.
As long as it was agreed by the majority in NI (and the Irish as well since they would be taking on the burden) I would see reunification as a positive outcome of Brexit.
Quite so but I'm not even going that far. It seems any kind of economic or regulatory divergence between NI and UK is anathema to the Conservative Government but it doesn't seem to be a concern to the people of NI and gets off any number of backstop-related hooks and probably smooths the way to the Deal getting through.
It is May's obsession with maintaining "our precious union" that has caused so many problems - that and her botched GE leaving her dependent on DUP support.
Apparently some Labour MPs who originally voted for the EEA amendment have told a Senior Minister they won’t accept that anymore . They want a second vote . Looks like the endgame is approaching , all in . No ones interested in any further compromises . This is going to end in tears for one side .
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.
Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
Take responsibility.
You said 'manifesto'. It is there in black and off grey on the page right in the middle of the comment from you that I answered.
And I quote:
"Leave's manifesto was simple: "
All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.
To be fair they're generally talking over a much longer timescale where, yes, significant numbers of people do either die or come of age.
Of course but the idea it shifts public opinion significantly has long been disproved. If it were true the Tory party wouldn't have won a single election since the 1950s.
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.
Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
Take responsibility.
You said 'manifesto'. It is there in black and off grey on the page right in the middle of the comment from you that I answered.
And I quote:
"Leave's manifesto was simple: "
All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.
Yep, fair enough, I was wrong on that. Mea culpa.
Now, how about you admitting where you've goner wrong to end the country in this mess?
One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis
Mr. Eagles, has readership decline increase or decreased since Greig[sp] took over?
The Daily Mail has lost about 200,000 daily readers since he took over. But that's entirely in keeping with the Mail's trend rate of decline.
He's only been in charge for a very brief time hasn't he? 200,000 seems like a lot of readers to lose in a short time.
The Daily Mail's readers are very old. Old people have a habit of dying.
That is just nasty
That's a completely and totally factual statement, you dolt.
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
No they're not literally dying of old age. A tiny proportion of circulation fall may be, but even the elderly don't literally die at that rapid a rate.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
It is exactly the same mistake as lefties make when they talk about demographics acting against the Tory party or Brexit.
To be fair they're generally talking over a much longer timescale where, yes, significant numbers of people do either die or come of age.
Of course but the idea it shifts public opinion significantly has long been disproved. If it were true the Tory party wouldn't have won a single election since the 1950s.
That seems like an odd way to look at it. Surely public opinion -has- changed significantly since 1950 and the Tories- all parties in fact- have only survived by moving with it?
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
I have some sympathy with MPs and expenses. My financial affairs are simple, and I shouldn't have much trouble meeting the requirements. But many others have financial affairs that are more complex, and even can come from many countries at various and sometimes unexpected times.
But Boris is rich enough to afford to employ someone whose job it is to meet the requirements. (And the same probably goes for Geoffrey Cox and his problems).
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis
Kellner's argument does address this. He claims that there's been statistically very little flipping. It's a cohort thing, not an age thing.
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.
Who said anything about the manifesto? Leave were too disorganised to produce a manifesto, and therefore had several campaigns that promised anything to everyone.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
Take responsibility.
You said 'manifesto'. It is there in black and off grey on the page right in the middle of the comment from you that I answered.
And I quote:
"Leave's manifesto was simple: "
All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.
Yep, fair enough, I was wrong on that. Mea culpa.
Now, how about you admitting where you've goner wrong to end the country in this mess?
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis
Absolutely, Richard.
We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Nerds obsess on this sort of bollocks and go on to miss the bigger picture. If Peter Kellner and his EU payday wife are so confident let's have that remain v no deal ref and see what happens.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
I'd like to agree with you, but I fear that MPs might not see the bigger picture and try to defy gravity.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis
Absolutely, Richard.
We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.
LOL. That is one fact I am happy to agree with. I cling to the vain hope it is because of all the alcohol I have enjoyed but I fear it is just senility.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
I know we don't agree on much but I do hope you are right with this. I fear we may be underestimating the stupidity of MPs on both sides of the debate though.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Except of course that assumes that not a single Remain voter becomes a Leave voter as they age. That is the basic whopping great mistake in your (And Peter Kellner's) thesis
Absolutely, Richard.
We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.
LOL. That is one fact I am happy to agree with. I cling to the vain hope it is because of all the alcohol I have enjoyed but I fear it is just senility.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
How is this dishonest? Was he keeping his column in the Telegraph a secret? I think even their diminished readership would make that difficult. This is incompetent, careless and lazy but I don't see dishonesty in this one.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
Which means the EU backing down and eating crow.......which cannot happen.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
I fear we may be underestimating the stupidity of MPs on both sides of the debate though.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
QED. Your view is mirrored by many MPs. And is the view of someone who really, really doesn't get it.
One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
How is this dishonest? Was he keeping his column in the Telegraph a secret? I think even their diminished readership would make that difficult. This is incompetent, careless and lazy but I don't see dishonesty in this one.
Well, that would rule him out anyway. In fact, more dramatically. Both Bill Clinton and Lloyd George were just as bad as Boris (arguably Kennedy was worse) but at least the two first named had extraordinary executive talent.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Official Monster Raving Loony Party next time then? (I'm assuming UKIP wont even have a candidate......)
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Have you ever drawn a box with NOTA next to it and ticked that?
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
Comments
As for who the Parliamentary party prefers to be Tory leader, I doubt we have long to wait to find out. And amongst the membership, Boris is far and away the winner.
I can't wait to see what machinations the Party is going to put in place to make sure Boris never gets put to the membership.
The ERG have been in desperate spin mode to say Grieves amendment doesn’t change things . No government can plow on with a course of action if a majority of MPs instruct them not to .
Do you ever consider you might, just occasionally, be a teeny bit over-sensitive?
Now your choice seems the perfect one to me but I am not representative of millions of Leave voters out there who would rightly feel cheated if No Deal was not on the ballot.
Deal can't be on there either. Parliament would have already pronounced it unacceptable, it's way too complex for the public, and it does not define the future relationship. We don't discover what leave means until we leave.
Which leaves Remain. And a single option ballot is a bit iffy so we're stuck.
No, 2nd ref not a runner. Parliament should implement or cancel. Man up parliament.
So - how about this? - we leave, negotiate the future relationship, live with it for a few years and then rejoin if it's all gone pear, which it probably will do. Not with a referendum obviously, once bitten twice shy, but via a party winning a GE with rejoin in its manifesto. British democracy at its finest.
But just seeing him now on ITV Wales confirmed he is hopeless and will not be an asset to Wales labour
Now that is EXACTLY what you should be telling parliament.
Remain had its chance in 2016. Remain lost. What needs to be decided is how we Leave
Throw in Corbyn and it might almost be worth the economic disas...actually that's not true.
Edit - my favourite Alun Michael anecdote is when my father came back from a meeting with him in a vile temper, threw his coat on the table and shouted loudly, 'No wonder Charles talks to his f***ing trees instead of his f***ing First Minister. He'd get much more f***ing SENSE out of them.'
Try harder.
1) Destroys British euroscepticism
2) Gets rid of Northern Ireland
What's not to love?
Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner.
Edit - to be quite honest, I tend not to read your posts. They have neither facts, nor sense, and only a shaky grasp of reality. You also express yourself in an unpleasant way towards just about everybody. But sometimes it's quite fun just to get you to display how incredibly unpleasant and unselfaware you are. It's a bit like trolling Hyufd, although while Hyufd's comments do border on the bizarre there is at least a basic intelligence there and he's usually reasonably civil.
Circulation is falling due to technology and all the other oft-stated reasons. Morbidity is a tiny fraction of the change.
I also think - on that basis - having no deal would meas you need remain on the ballot as well. People didn't vote to remain, but they didn't vote for a no deal either; and you are offering two "leave" options with Norway vs. the TM deal.
There's a hell of a lot of partial or inaccurate information out there, even for us political obsessives. Most people can't be arsed going through the details, and will go with whoever they instinctively trust to tell them the truth (where the 'truth' is what best fits their world view, as uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable).
The people pushing no deal should be treated with the utmost disdain , the sane members of the public should not be subjected to the idiocy of a bunch of clueless voters voting to destroy their own country !
Not "virtually all Tories" will back a Dead v No Deal referendum. Please quote Clarke saying he thinks it is a good idea. I think he'd find it a terrible idea actually.
Yougov has Remain 52% No Deal 48% if that was the result it also effectively solves NOTHING, especially as Deltapoll has it Remain 48% No Deal 52%.
Yougov has it Deal 62% No Deal 38%, Deltapoll also has Deal ahead of No Deal by double figures. That is the ONLY choice which may give the clear result to resolve Brexit.
Even Clarke has switched to the Deal as a sensible compromise
All of them.
Again, a lot of people seem fairly relaxed about it - except of course the Conservative and Unionist Party who want to see us all suffer to protect "our precious union".
"No"
...
"Well, thanks for your time."
Mail Online's heady mix of sideboob and baiting twitter with right wing views has ensured it a long and healthy life.
And that's why leave are responsible for this mess, as what they - and you - promised was undeliverable.
Take responsibility.
Around 600,000 Britons die each year; a further 700,000 reach voting age. Taking account of polling data about older voters, and recent surveys of the views of new voters, and allowing for the fact that older electors are more likely to vote than younger electors, we find that:
ca. 320,000 Leave voters and 160,000 Remain voters die each year,
ca. 395,000 Remain voters and 60,000 Leave voters reach voting age each year.
Combining these two sets of figures, death and demography alone is shrinking the Leave majority by almost 500,000 a year, or 1,350 a day. As the overall Leave majority in the referendum was 1,269,501, the effect is to cause the Leave majority to disappear entirely on January 19th, 2019.
Today's non-newspaper readers are however unlikely to evolve to be tomorrow's newspaper readers. So the morbidity impact won't be negated in full. However morbidity even amongst the elderly is not that high.
Readership levels are falling because former readers are now choosing not to read a paper anymore. Not because they're dead.
It is May's obsession with maintaining "our precious union" that has caused so many problems - that and her botched GE leaving her dependent on DUP support.
Why is he filmed talking to Davies?
Why is he talking to Davies and not talking to potential rebels who could be won around?
Why is he texting back those who say they are going to rebel, but has time to be filmed talking to Davies?
And I quote:
"Leave's manifesto was simple: "
All I doing was telling you you were wrong. Now you deny saying it even though it is right there.
Now, how about you admitting where you've goner wrong to end the country in this mess?
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
But Boris is rich enough to afford to employ someone whose job it is to meet the requirements. (And the same probably goes for Geoffrey Cox and his problems).
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
We get stupider as we get older, as you and I can attest.
At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The debate is as dead as her Deal.
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok
Plaid Cymru
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
Labour
Green
Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.