YouGov also have first preferences in a three-way referendum as:
Remain: 54% Deal: 18% No Deal: 28%
How the hell are we in the crazy position of being held to ransom by TM for something that parliament clearly doesn't want and only 18 per cent of the public support?
For May, nothing matters beyond one more day in office.
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
Government is hard. Particularly minority government in a time of crisis beset by internal divisions. While I cannot say I have been particularly enthused by the quality of debate or focus of our politicians at this time, parliament has been pursuing its role in discussing big issues more than they often do.
But the quality of debate has been so poor, positions so entrenched that there has been zero point to the debating/questioning. There is so little willingness to compromise, and so much determination to play politics rather than engage in meaningful contemplation.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Is this deal what people want? No Will the deal makes us better off? No Will the deal take back control? No Is this the only way? No Do we have to leave? No
Do you respect democracy? No
Do you disrespect democracy through more democracy? No
How many referenda would be necessary for Remain to admit defeat and move on?
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
We stop after the first referendum that decides between two propositions both of which we can actually do.
Yeah right. If it were remain and no deal and no deal won, and we could do it, there's no way parliament would agree to it, nor would most of the peoples vote crowd. Remember the cry, let's have a people vote to stop brexit, that's the goal, not to decide between two propositions both which we can actually do.
I refer you to my comments about no deal that I gave earlier in the thread.
YouGov also have first preferences in a three-way referendum as:
Remain: 54% Deal: 18% No Deal: 28%
How the hell are we in the crazy position of being held to ransom by TM for something that parliament clearly doesn't want and only 18 per cent of the public support?
The Deal is a compromise for everyone. Thus it has few fans in a triumverate. It has far more when pitched against either Remain or No Deal.
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
Government is hard. Particularly minority government in a time of crisis beset by internal divisions. While I cannot say I have been particularly enthused by the quality of debate or focus of our politicians at this time, parliament has been pursuing its role in discussing big issues more than they often do.
But the quality of debate has been so poor, positions so entrenched that there has been zero point to the debating/questioning. There is so little willingness to compromise, and so much determination to play politics rather than engage in meaningful contemplation.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Is this deal what people want? No Will the deal makes us better off? No Will the deal take back control? No Is this the only way? No Do we have to leave? No
Do you respect democracy? No
Do you disrespect democracy through more democracy? No
How many referenda would be necessary for Remain to admit defeat and move on?
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
How many elections are necessary for the Conservatives to accept they’re never going to win Oxford City Council and move on?
If you believe in something you keep fighting.
Not a good analogy - the Conservatives there are presumably not fighting to nullify the results of the last election so the winners do not take up their seats at all.
I don't regard there as anything inherently wrong with arguing for another vote, democracy is democracy, but it is not the same as fighting the next regularly scheduled election.
If the voters elected Mr Blobby but then Tinky Winky showed up at Parliament then maybe they would be fighting to nullify the result?
I thought John Prescott and Peter Mandelson were in the Lords these days.
YouGov also have first preferences in a three-way referendum as:
Remain: 54% Deal: 18% No Deal: 28%
How the hell are we in the crazy position of being held to ransom by TM for something that parliament clearly doesn't want and only 18 per cent of the public support?
Only one possible reason - the alternatives are not as simple or problem free as their advocates are pretending. If they were, the Tories would have acted to remove May long before now, Labour would not be promising the same basic thing but with a Labour tint, and so on.
This doesn't mean the deal will pass. It could be the greatest possible offer available, but it is too hated in parliament to pass under any circumstances now, and there's no public opinion behind it to change that in parliament or if it came to a public vote. But it does mean it is hanging around simply because while other sides do have plans, they are being false about the risk and difficulties of them and they know it.
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
Government is hard. Particularly minority government in a time of crisis beset by internal divisions. While I cannot say I have been particularly enthused by the quality of debate or focus of our politicians at this time, parliament has been pursuing its role in discussing big issues more than they often do.
But the quality of debate has been so poor, positions so entrenched that there has been zero point to the debating/questioning. There is so little willingness to compromise, and so much determination to play politics rather than engage in meaningful contemplation.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Is this deal what people want? No Will the deal makes us better off? No Will the deal take back control? No Is this the only way? No Do we have to leave? No
Do you respect democracy? No
Do you disrespect democracy through more democracy? No
How many referenda would be necessary for Remain to admit defeat and move on?
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
Yep - they learnt from the EU - keep going until you get the result you want.
With everything that's happened over recent years I think we all need to take polls with a hefty pinch of salt - though, FWIW, you tot up the positive and negative reactions and you get what (I believe) the right/wrong tracker has been coming out with for some time: a lead for Remain, but not a vast one.
Nor does a crude set of figures like this tell us how those surveyed voted last time, whether they've changed their minds, and how likely they would be to vote again.
My take on a second referendum is as follows:
1. It'll be a mass bloodletting exercise that will make referendum Mk.1 look tame by comparison. By the time it's over the current situation - two warring camps that detest one another, with the rest of the population stuck inbetween either trying to ignore it or wishing to God it would stop - will be ten times worse 2. It is unlikely to generate a decisive result, one way or another, and nor will it settle any arguments. Given that it's obvious that a negotiated deal can only be done with the EU on terms that are advantageous to it and keep us closely aligned to its system, only a Hard Brexit can provide any resolution to this endless dispute - except, if there is a Hard Brexit decision then Parliament still won't implement it. And nobody will be stupid enough to trust this Parliament to implement it, either 3. Consequently, the next General Election will probably be the third referendum by proxy, anyway - so why not just cut the crap and skip straight to the election?
A referendum with the three options of May Deal, No Deal, and Remain, done by ranked choice would be decisive, and any of the results would be implementable. And are the only three options available which we could implement (though of course No Deal would come with a host of particular problems).
Whether anyone would be happy with such an idea is naturally another matter.
Revoke A50, dissolve parliament and have an immediate GE, then take off and nuke the entire Westminster site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I object to nuking Parliament. Surrounding property and innocent bystanders would come to harm.
Besides, I think Westminster Hall and the Clock Tower are worth saving. The rest of it could be carefully demolished and the site levelled and turned into a nice park. There is form for doing that with an excessively grand palace that has outlived its usefulness. It's what the French did to the Tuileries.
A nice new one could be built somewhere up North, well away from London. It's about time.
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
Government is hard. Particularly minority government in a time of crisis beset by internal divisions. While I cannot say I have been particularly enthused by the quality of debate or focus of our politicians at this time, parliament has been pursuing its role in discussing big issues more than they often do.
But the quality of debate has been so poor, positions so entrenched that there has been zero point to the debating/questioning. There is so little willingness to compromise, and so much determination to play politics rather than engage in meaningful contemplation.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Is this deal what people want? No Will the deal makes us better off? No Will the deal take back control? No Is this the only way? No Do we have to leave? No
Do you respect democracy? No
Do you disrespect democracy through more democracy? No
How many referenda would be necessary for Remain to admit defeat and move on?
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
We stop after the first referendum that decides between two propositions both of which we can actually do.
So When you get your way. Glad you cleared that up.
Revoke A50, dissolve parliament and have an immediate GE, then take off and nuke the entire Westminster site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I object to nuking Parliament. Surrounding property and innocent bystanders would come to harm.
Besides, I think Westminster Hall and the Clock Tower are worth saving. The rest of it could be carefully demolished and the site levelled and turned into a nice park. There is form for doing that with an excessively grand palace that has outlived its usefulness. It's what the French did to the Tuileries.
A nice new one could be built somewhere up North, well away from London. It's about time.
As long as there is a decent length of fence retained for Labour to sit on.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
No, it's genius, they're doing the 'We're crazy!' strategy.
For those muttering darkly about Leavers rioting in the event of Brexit being cancelled, it's worth reflecting that the power to get people out on the street seems to rest mainly on the Remain side if recent marches are a guide.
If reversing Brexit can be met with equanimity and no violence, why not a hard UK/Ireland border?
A UK/Ireland border is much more likely to provoke violence imho, from a breakdown of the NI peace process.
I am not saying it's a given - just that it's more likely to lead to violence than reversing Brexit.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
We will fight them on the beaches... unless we think we will lose. In which case we won't.
A referendum with the three options of May Deal, No Deal, and Remain, done by ranked choice would be decisive
Not sure about that at all. For example, what if there are three very close results, and the "winner" is essentially settled by which option just so happens to get knocked out in the first round? At least a campaign with three sides slogging it out can't be accused of splitting the country into two...
So after today the May paradox is: May's only use is that someone has to get this deal through parliament because TINA and the PM that does it will be subsequently sacked. But only sacking May will be able to get this deal through parliament.
With everything that's happened over recent years I think we all need to take polls with a hefty pinch of salt - though, FWIW, you tot up the positive and negative reactions and you get what (I believe) the right/wrong tracker has been coming out with for some time: a lead for Remain, but not a vast one.
Nor does a crude set of figures like this tell us how those surveyed voted last time, whether they've changed their minds, and how likely they would be to vote again.
My take on a second referendum is as follows:
1. It'll be a mass bloodletting exercise that will make referendum Mk.1 look tame by comparison. By the time it's over the current situation - two warring camps that detest one another, with the rest of the population stuck inbetween either trying to ignore it or wishing to God it would stop - will be ten times worse 2. It is unlikely to generate a decisive result, one way or another, and nor will it settle any arguments. Given that it's obvious that a negotiated deal can only be done with the EU on terms that are advantageous to it and keep us closely aligned to its system, only a Hard Brexit can provide any resolution to this endless dispute - except, if there is a Hard Brexit decision then Parliament still won't implement it. And nobody will be stupid enough to trust this Parliament to implement it, either 3. Consequently, the next General Election will probably be the third referendum by proxy, anyway - so why not just cut the crap and skip straight to the election?
A referendum with the three options of May Deal, No Deal, and Remain, done by ranked choice would be decisive, and any of the results would be implementable. And are the only three options available which we could implement (though of course No Deal would come with a host of particular problems).
Whether anyone would be happy with such an idea is naturally another matter.
Well, that is the other problem. If Parliament wants to force a second referendum on us then it has to decide on a question, and whatever it picks is going to be heavily criticised - if it can agree on a formula at all, and if the Government hasn't fallen and Parliament been dissolved before it has finished debating.
FWIW, the least unsatisfactory solution seems to me to be a two-stage vote: Leave vs Remain, followed, only in the event of a Leave vote, by Deal versus No Deal (which, ironically, would probably end up giving us the turd sandwich that May is trying to serve up at the moment.) But I'd much rather we were spared the horror of it all.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
A referendum with the three options of May Deal, No Deal, and Remain, done by ranked choice would be decisive
Not sure about that at all. For example, what if there are three very close results, and the "winner" is essentially settled by which option just so happens to get knocked out in the first round? At least a campaign with three sides slogging it out can't be accused of splitting the country into two...
Given the desperate unwillingness of Parliament to take a position, it might be the least worst option.
And at least the great majority of the electorate would get to vote for what they most and least wanted.
I told you from day one this was a constitutional crisis. You created an alternative power source to the Queen in Parliament, a referendum, then plugged it into a system not engineered to cope. The referendum mandated not only something that literally can't be delivered ( Leave's promises ) and the Queen in Parliament would hate doing even if it wasn't impossible. Impossible even before the government accidently lost a General Election designed to reboot the system. And now the constitution is a radioactive slag heap.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
50 or so would have been enough. It's not just about the numbers we are seeing now, it's about Theresa May's political authority (or rather her total lack of it). If she'd been seen as a winner, or at least a bit of a winner, there would be far fewer rebels, and of course we wouldn't also have the DUP complication.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling the election and then royally screwing up the campaign.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I told you from day one this was a constitutional crisis. You created an alternative power source to the Queen in Parliament, a referendum, then plugged it into a system not engineered to cope. The referendum mandated not only something that literally can't be delivered ( Leave's promises ) and the Queen in Parliament would hate doing even if it wasn't impossible. Impossible even before the government accident lost a General Election designed to reboot the system. And now the constitution is a radioactive slag heap.
The referendum did not give a mandate to Leave's promises - because Leave's promises were not part of the question. It was Leave or Remain. It is wrong to conflate the campaigns and the actual question.
There is a clear mandate to leave the EU - what that means is another matter. But it is a mandate nonetheless.
Also the two biggest parties stood in the 2017 Election with the promise to deliver on that mandate.
So the people voted in 2016 to leave the EU and they voted in 2017 for two parties (combined vote share of 82.4%) who said they would deliver on the 2016 vote.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
50 or so would have been enough. It's not just about the numbers we are seeing now, it's about Theresa May's political authority (or rather her total lack of it). If she'd been seen as a winner, or at least a bit of a winner, there would be far fewer rebels, and of course we wouldn't also have the DUP complication.
The 2017 intake includes people like Ross Thomson who is totally against the deal, despite owing his seat to May/Davidson. Boris Johnson would have been resolutely against it no matter what and would have whipped up opposition. If May had looked like a winner, the sense of betrayal could be even more than it is now.
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
Government is hard. Particularly minority government in a time of crisis beset by internal divisions. While I cannot say I have been particularly enthused by the quality of debate or focus of our politicians at this time, parliament has been pursuing its role in discussing big issues more than they often do.
But the quality of debate has been so poor, positions so entrenched that there has been zero point to the debating/questioning. There is so little willingness to compromise, and so much determination to play politics rather than engage in meaningful contemplation.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Is this deal what people want? No Will the deal makes us better off? No Will the deal take back control? No Is this the only way? No Do we have to leave? No
Do you respect democracy? No
Do you disrespect democracy through more democracy? No
How many referenda would be necessary for Remain to admit defeat and move on?
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
Depends if there is new information. We had about as much information in the last two years as we did between the first referendum (1975) and the second (2016).
Let’s just get on with it.
May's strategy is to run down the clock in the hope that it will force people to agree with her. Unfortunately the no-dealers get what they want by continuing to disagree, so it won't work on them. With the A50 ruling the Remainers also know that it's not impossible that a revocation can be forced through in, what, 48 hours of if necessary (including the train journey to Brussels). I think this is going to go right to the wire and, whatever happens, that alone will do us lasting damage.
YouGov also have first preferences in a three-way referendum as:
Remain: 54% Deal: 18% No Deal: 28%
How the hell are we in the crazy position of being held to ransom by TM for something that parliament clearly doesn't want and only 18 per cent of the public support?
Do even 18% of the public know what May's deal is?
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
50 or so would have been enough. It's not just about the numbers we are seeing now, it's about Theresa May's political authority (or rather her total lack of it). If she'd been seen as a winner, or at least a bit of a winner, there would be far fewer rebels, and of course we wouldn't also have the DUP complication.
The 2017 intake includes people like Ross Thomson who is totally against the deal, despite owing his seat to May/Davidson. Boris Johnson would have been resolutely against it no matter what and would have whipped up opposition. If May had looked like a winner, the sense of betrayal could be even more than it is now.
You hugely underestimate the importance of political authority. She lost it completely at the election, and there's no recovering from that.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
50 or so would have been enough. It's not just about the numbers we are seeing now, it's about Theresa May's political authority (or rather her total lack of it). If she'd been seen as a winner, or at least a bit of a winner, there would be far fewer rebels, and of course we wouldn't also have the DUP complication.
The 2017 intake includes people like Ross Thomson who is totally against the deal, despite owing his seat to May/Davidson. Boris Johnson would have been resolutely against it no matter what and would have whipped up opposition. If May had looked like a winner, the sense of betrayal could be even more than it is now.
You hugely underestimate the importance of political authority. She lost it completely at the election, and there's no recovering from that.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
No it's not a bit rich since its her fault she got into that mess!
Had the election been mandated because of five years passing rather than premature ... Had the election been fought hard ... Had she bothered to turn up to the debates ...
... Then maybe she could get some sympathy. But she sought a mandate without seeking to put the effort in to get that mandate. Without bothering to show up to the debates. Being outclassed and outshone by Jeremy freaking Corbyn. The voters didn't do anything wrong, much as I regret the result, it was a result she deserved. In some ways a better result than she deserved.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
Knowing what you know now about the appetite for the deal within the Tory party, how big a majority do you think would have been enough? You can't blame the electorate for this.
50 or so would have been enough. It's not just about the numbers we are seeing now, it's about Theresa May's political authority (or rather her total lack of it). If she'd been seen as a winner, or at least a bit of a winner, there would be far fewer rebels, and of course we wouldn't also have the DUP complication.
The 2017 intake includes people like Ross Thomson who is totally against the deal, despite owing his seat to May/Davidson. Boris Johnson would have been resolutely against it no matter what and would have whipped up opposition. If May had looked like a winner, the sense of betrayal could be even more than it is now.
You hugely underestimate the importance of political authority. She lost it completely at the election, and there's no recovering from that.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
No it's not a bit rich since its her fault she got into that mess!
Had the election been mandated because of five years passing rather than premature ... Had the election been fought hard ... Had she bothered to turn up to the debates ...
... Then maybe she could get some sympathy. But she sought a mandate without seeking to put the effort in to get that mandate. Without bothering to show up to the debates. Being outclassed and outshone by Jeremy freaking Corbyn. The voters didn't do anything wrong, much as I regret the result, it was a result she deserved. In some ways a better result than she deserved.
Agreed
I think that's the first time I have ever agreed with you!
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
In which case why are they accusing her of being weak? It's not her fault*, they got the chaos they wanted.
* Well it is her fault for screwing up the campaign, but that doesn't absolve voters from their share of responsibility for the mess.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
In which case why are they accusing her of being weak? It's not her fault*, they got the chaos they wanted.
* Well it is her fault for screwing up the campaign, but that doesn't absolve voters from their share of responsibility for the mess.
It's the Brexiteers who are accusing her of being weak. The ones whose bidding she's been doing for two years.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
In which case why are they accusing her of being weak? It's not her fault*, they got the chaos they wanted.
* Well it is her fault for screwing up the campaign, but that doesn't absolve voters from their share of responsibility for the mess.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
No Richard the catastrophic blunder the voters made was in 2015 giving that arse Cameron a majority. This mess stems entirely from that moment. All those who deserted the Lib Dems gifted the Tories seats by the dozen.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Sorry . You normally talk sense But, are you seriously suggesting real wage declines, tuition fees , unaffordable housing , etc. are trivia ? When set against the urgent pressing need for your Brexit?
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
We are governed by the biggest bunch of incompetent shysters and fools in our entire history. Who will believe a word any of them says in the future - 1110 the vote will be going ahead, 1115 oh no it won't. Doesn't bode well for any trade negotiations at all.
Well, voters made a catastrophic blunder in 2017, leaving a minority government to implement the already incredibly difficult task they had set in 2016. It's the voters, not the politicians landed with the impossible position, who are the shysters and fools. No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances, let alone when faced with the most contentious and difficult problem in half a century. And it's not helped by shysters such as the LibDems, who voted for the referendum but then refuse to support implementing the choice of the voters, still less by Labour who also voted for invoking Article 50.
No Richard the catastrophic blunder the voters made was in 2015 giving that arse Cameron a majority. This mess stems entirely from that moment. All those who deserted the Lib Dems gifted the Tories seats by the dozen.
No, the mess stems from Major signing up to Maastricht. From that moment the UK leaving the EU was, in hindsight, inevitable.
With everything that's happened over recent years I think we all need to take polls with a hefty pinch of salt - though, FWIW, you tot up the positive and negative reactions and you get what (I believe) the right/wrong tracker has been coming out with for some time: a lead for Remain, but not a vast one.
Nor does a crude set of figures like this tell us how those surveyed voted last time, whether they've changed their minds, and how likely they would be to vote again.
My take on a second referendum is as follows:
1. It'll be a mass bloodletting exercise that will make referendum Mk.1 look tame by comparison. By the time it's over the current situation - two warring camps that detest one another, with the rest of the population stuck inbetween either trying to ignore it or wishing to God it would stop - will be ten times worse 2. It is unlikely to generate a decisive result, one way or another, and nor will it settle any arguments. Given that it's obvious that a negotiated deal can only be done with the EU on terms that are advantageous to it and keep us closely aligned to its system, only a Hard Brexit can provide any resolution to this endless dispute - except, if there is a Hard Brexit decision then Parliament still won't implement it. And nobody will be stupid enough to trust this Parliament to implement it, either 3. Consequently, the next General Election will probably be the third referendum by proxy, anyway - so why not just cut the crap and skip straight to the election?
A referendum with the three options of May Deal, No Deal, and Remain, done by ranked choice would be decisive, and any of the results would be implementable. And are the only three options available which we could implement (though of course No Deal would come with a host of particular problems).
Whether anyone would be happy with such an idea is naturally another matter.
We really do need a voting system in which everybody's second choice is evaluated before any elimination takes place. It is stupid to end up with a result which nobody much wants, when a little more care & effort would reveal the result that a lot of people would be quite pleased about.
The 30% who would feel 'betrayed' or 'angry' if Brexit was cancelled roughly correlates with those who put No Deal as their first preference and would provide a sizeable core vote for any new Farage party.
The fact that 30% would be 'delighted' or 'pleased' if Brexit was cancelled also shows that the passionate Remainers and Leavers are roughly equally matched, it is the 40% in the middle who will be decisive as to how Brexit turns out, if it takes place at all
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
And even with a minority government May could have ignored the ERG and reached across Parliament for a majority which would have placated most of the 52% and the 48% and come up with a sensible solution. But no the good of the Tory party was yet again placed firmly above the good of the country. If there's ever a Tory government again in my lifetime it'll be far, far too soon.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Sorry . You normally talk sense But, are you seriously suggesting real wage declines, tuition fees , unaffordable housing , etc. are trivia ? When set against the urgent pressing need for your Brexit?
My Brexit? I voted Remain. But it was perverse that those who wanted Brexit - by any measure the most difficult thing to implement for generations - prioritised other things over ensuring it could be implemented.
YouGov also have first preferences in a three-way referendum as:
Remain: 54% Deal: 18% No Deal: 28%
How the hell are we in the crazy position of being held to ransom by TM for something that parliament clearly doesn't want and only 18 per cent of the public support?
YouGov last week also had the Deal getting 65% head to head against No Deal and 50% head to head with Remain, the Deal may not be most voters' first choice but it is almost everybody's second preference over the polarising options of Remain or Leave with No Deal
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
May wasn't "landed" with any Parliamentary numbers. She was in control of the campaign, she made the decision to call the vote, she made the decision not to bother to turn up to the debates, she made the decision to avoid the general public most of the campaign [that she had called lest we forget].
A whopping great majority was there to be won against Corbyn by a passionate and skilled leader. May was not that leader. She got the result she deserved after flopping the campaign.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
And even with a minority government May could have ignored the ERG and reached across Parliament for a majority which would have placated most of the 52% and the 48% and come up with a sensible solution. But no the good of the Tory party was yet again placed firmly above the good of the country. If there's ever a Tory government again in my lifetime it'll be far, far too soon.
LOL! Reach across to Labour? Corbyn's Labour,who even now at this late stage are playing utterly cynical and dishonest games with the vote?
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Sorry . You normally talk sense But, are you seriously suggesting real wage declines, tuition fees , unaffordable housing , etc. are trivia ? When set against the urgent pressing need for your Brexit?
My Brexit? I voted Remain. But it was perverse that those who wanted Brexit - by any measure the most difficult thing to implement for generations - prioritised other things over ensuring it could be implemented.
Maybe they are not so Euro-fixated as the average Tory?
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
May wasn't "landed" with any Parliamentary numbers. She was in control of the campaign, she made the decision to call the vote, she made the decision not to bother to turn up to the debates, she made the decision to avoid the general public most of the campaign [that she had called lest we forget].
A whopping great majority was there to be won against Corbyn by a passionate and skilled leader. May was not that leader. She got the result she deserved after flopping the campaign.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
What an idiot.
TM called and managed to lose a 20 point lead at GE2017 by being so useless.
She then spent 2 years being a useless negotiator and brought back a useless deal.
The fact you think Austerity disabled people driven to suicide and the NHS on its knees is trivia says lots about you.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Sorry . You normally talk sense But, are you seriously suggesting real wage declines, tuition fees , unaffordable housing , etc. are trivia ? When set against the urgent pressing need for your Brexit?
My Brexit? I voted Remain. But it was perverse that those who wanted Brexit - by any measure the most difficult thing to implement for generations - prioritised other things over ensuring it could be implemented.
Maybe they are not so Euro-fixated as the average Tory?
Maybe not, but if you are are telling the government to do it, you need to give them the tools to do it.
Looking forward when does May return and announce whatever has been decided with the Europe meeting this week?
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
In which case why are they accusing her of being weak? It's not her fault*, they got the chaos they wanted.
* Well it is her fault for screwing up the campaign, but that doesn't absolve voters from their share of responsibility for the mess.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
And even with a minority government May could have ignored the ERG and reached across Parliament for a majority which would have placated most of the 52% and the 48% and come up with a sensible solution. But no the good of the Tory party was yet again placed firmly above the good of the country. If there's ever a Tory government again in my lifetime it'll be far, far too soon.
LOL! Reach across to Labour? Corbyn's Labour,who even now at this late stage are playing utterly cynical and dishonest games with the vote?
Bollocks. It's not Corbyn who has cancelled the vote tomorrow and sent out ministers galore to lie about it this morning. And yes there is a government of national unity available in the Commons who could get us out of this mess and it needn't include May nor Corbyn.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
Well, you've guessed my voting correctly on both counts.
As in a Shakespearean tragedy, there is a whole series of events which seem to be leading us to disaster, any one of which had it not occurred would have meant a better path:
- Reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 Financial crash - Cameron unexpectedly winning a majority in 2015... - ...and therefore having to delivery on the EU ref... - ...without including any mandate thresholds - Corbyn being included in the Labour leader shortlist - Cameron having no plan for a Leave win... - ... and then resigning immediately after the EU ref - May going overboard with red lines to prove her Brexit commitment - Invoking A50 so early with no desired end state agreed - Calling and running an unneccessary and disasterous GE
I am sure there are others.
Maybe the ECJ A50 judgement is the first thing that has gone the right way to help avoid disaster?
Looking forward when does May return and announce whatever has been decided with the Europe meeting this week?
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
No as no alternative leader would get anything different, as the EU have repeated yet again today without the backstop there is No Deal, end of conversation, all they will do is try and help get it ratified
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes (or lack thereof).
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Sorry . You normally talk sense But, are you seriously suggesting real wage declines, tuition fees , unaffordable housing , etc. are trivia ? When set against the urgent pressing need for your Brexit?
My Brexit? I voted Remain. But it was perverse that those who wanted Brexit - by any measure the most difficult thing to implement for generations - prioritised other things over ensuring it could be implemented.
And therein is the single great error That Leave voters would rally en masse to a Tory flag. It was only viable from the very start on a cross party basis. The very opposite of how it has been attempted .
Looking forward when does May return and announce whatever has been decided with the Europe meeting this week?
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
Well you'd think so but I can't see how today's wasn't either, particularly since if Tusk is any indication nothing will be forthcoming that will sway 100 votes.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
May wasn't "landed" with any Parliamentary numbers. She was in control of the campaign, she made the decision to call the vote, she made the decision not to bother to turn up to the debates, she made the decision to avoid the general public most of the campaign [that she had called lest we forget].
A whopping great majority was there to be won against Corbyn by a passionate and skilled leader. May was not that leader. She got the result she deserved after flopping the campaign.
All that is true. It doesn't invalidate my point.
It does. If she had inherited the Parliamentary numbers somehow you could say she was landed with them. If we had some elements of America's political system say and she had inherited the job of PM (like a Veep does upon death of the President) and she had inherited the current numbers and an early election wasn't an option as terms were truly fixed ... then perhaps you could say she was "landed with" those numbers.
The fact the numbers were due to her own poor performance negates that. Her weakness flows from her own incompetence.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
What an idiot.
TM called and managed to lose a 20 point lead at GE2017 by being so useless.
She then spent 2 years being a useless negotiator and brought back a useless deal.
The fact you think Austerity disabled people driven to suicide and the NHS on its knees is trivia says lots about you.
Unemployment half the rate the last Labour government left and the deficit down is not trivia either.
The fact the PM has spent 2 years hard at work to get this Deal only to face the useless opposition who will as usual put party politics above the national interest and the ideologues of the DUP and ERG is another point
Bollocks. It's not Corbyn who has cancelled the vote tomorrow and sent out ministers galore to lie about it this morning. And yes there is a government of national unity available in the Commons who could get us out of this mess and it needn't include May nor Corbyn.
Really? Who would be the key figures in this government of national unity, why are they not proposing it, and where would the 325+ MPs for it be found?
As for postponing the vote, it's simply a sign of desperation - which is my point. She doesn't have the numbers to implement the very reasonable deal, Labour are playing partisan games, No Deal is unthinkable, and revoking Article 50 and/or holding a referendum almost as unthinkable (although possibly the least unthinkable of the bad options).
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
And she carried on despite that hobbling. A remarkable sense of civic duty.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
The truth is that many voters actively tried to hobble her ability to deliver Brexit. That's democracy. She asked people to strengthen her hand and they refused.
And she carried on despite that hobbling. A remarkable sense of civic duty.
Or a complete inability of the Tories to realise she would be as shite at BREXIT as she was at GE's
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
What an idiot.
TM called and managed to lose a 20 point lead at GE2017 by being so useless.
She then spent 2 years being a useless negotiator and brought back a useless deal.
The fact you think Austerity disabled people driven to suicide and the NHS on its knees is trivia says lots about you.
Unemployment half the rate the last Labour government left and the deficit down is not trivia either.
The fact the PM has spent 2 years hard at work to get this Deal only to fact the useless opposition who will as usual put party politics above the national interest and the ideologues of the DUP and ERG is another point
She has not spent 2 years hard at work to get this Deal though! If she had she could have been selling it as she went along and brought Parliament with her.
She has spent most of the last year fighting elements of this Deal (like the backstop) only to surrender and meekly accept what Barnier and Varadkar had written. Anyone weak could do the latter.
I find it completely baffling that an otherwise apparently intelligent person like you cannot see what nonsense it is to describe 'voters' as if they had a single mind with which they could make some kind of unified choice.
I've answered that point in my previous post, but it's equally baffling that people accuse politicians of being weak or or incompetent or worse, when the problem is the parliamentary numbers they are landed with.
Well yes, I concede that point.
The HoC is, like FPTP, set up to decide binary choices. With Brexit we now seem to have a ternary choice: No Deal, Deal, Remain, with no majority for any of those.
No point in treating the voters as a homogenous mass. No one voter could be sure how all the other voters would vote so there was no way any of us could avoid or intentionally cause the 2017 GE outcome.
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling and then royally screwing up the election.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
I don't accept that. Voters didn't take the election seriously, in the sense that they didn't take account of the need for her mandate, and instead got distracted by trivia. Up to them, of course, but it's a bit rich blaming her for not being able to govern and force her deal through when the reason she can't govern is their votes.
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
I voted. How is it my fault?
Presumably you weren't one of the substantial number who voted Leave and then declined to vote for her so that she could implement it. Those are the specific voters who are at fault.
What an idiot.
TM called and managed to lose a 20 point lead at GE2017 by being so useless.
She then spent 2 years being a useless negotiator and brought back a useless deal.
The fact you think Austerity disabled people driven to suicide and the NHS on its knees is trivia says lots about you.
Unemployment half the rate the last Labour government left and the deficit down is not trivia either.
The fact the PM has spent 2 years hard at work to get this Deal only to face the useless opposition who will as usual put party politics above the national interest and the ideologues of the DUP and ERG is another point
The Tory front bench looks incredibly tired and aged.
While Labour's looks totally incompetent
Until you compare them to the LD's
Now I know you are fooling us. If there was a nation wide party out there which was the only such party which had consistently, unequivocally been in favouring of remaining/rejoining the EU, at a time when the leaderships of the main party have been dealing with weakness and scandal on a semi regular basis, and remaining becomes increasingly popular, then that party would be making a major impact in the polls. So I know no such party exists.
Looking forward when does May return and announce whatever has been decided with the Europe meeting this week?
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
Well you'd think so but I can't see how today's wasn't either, particularly since if Tusk is any indication nothing will be forthcoming that will sway 100 votes.
Today's should be if she wasn't going to Europe tomorrow. Realistically there's no chance to determine who replaces her, get them into Downing Street then over to Europe all in time for tomorrow. So may as well wait 24-48 hours and see if she comes up with something.
Looking forward when does May return and announce whatever has been decided with the Europe meeting this week?
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
No as no alternative leader would get anything different, as the EU have repeated yet again today without the backstop there is No Deal, end of conversation, all they will do is try and help get it ratified
How do you know the EU are telling the truth today?
Comments
This doesn't mean the deal will pass. It could be the greatest possible offer available, but it is too hated in parliament to pass under any circumstances now, and there's no public opinion behind it to change that in parliament or if it came to a public vote. But it does mean it is hanging around simply because while other sides do have plans, they are being false about the risk and difficulties of them and they know it.
Disenchanted30%
Dontgiveamonkeysanymore 20%
We aren't the Swiss.
The invalid position is "Vote Again on the same thing".
Whether anyone would be happy with such an idea is naturally another matter.
Besides, I think Westminster Hall and the Clock Tower are worth saving. The rest of it could be carefully demolished and the site levelled and turned into a nice park. There is form for doing that with an excessively grand palace that has outlived its usefulness. It's what the French did to the Tuileries.
A nice new one could be built somewhere up North, well away from London. It's about time.
Stop 68%
Asking 47%
Me 4%
What 64%
I 72%
Think 22%
About 31%
Brexit 3%
I'm 65%
Sick 67%
Of 57%
It 23%
I am not saying it's a given - just that it's more likely to lead to violence than reversing Brexit.
Umm.
FWIW, the least unsatisfactory solution seems to me to be a two-stage vote: Leave vs Remain, followed, only in the event of a Leave vote, by Deal versus No Deal (which, ironically, would probably end up giving us the turd sandwich that May is trying to serve up at the moment.) But I'd much rather we were spared the horror of it all.
And at least the great majority of the electorate would get to vote for what they most and least wanted.
So it is best not to read too much into them just yet
Flaccid 17%
Oratund 15%
Brutalised 15%
Debauched 12%
Maniacal 10%
Captaaiiinnn CAAAAVVVVEEEEMAAAAANNN 8%
The only people who can really take the blame are May and her team for calling the election and then royally screwing up the campaign.
"No one on this earth could govern properly with this parliament even in normal circumstances..." Well they should hold another election then.
There is a clear mandate to leave the EU - what that means is another matter. But it is a mandate nonetheless.
Also the two biggest parties stood in the 2017 Election with the promise to deliver on that mandate.
So the people voted in 2016 to leave the EU and they voted in 2017 for two parties (combined vote share of 82.4%) who said they would deliver on the 2016 vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/day-of-brexit-drama-ends-with-mp-grabbing-the
As for another election, how would that help? A Corbyn minority government handling this mess?
Had the election been mandated because of five years passing rather than premature ...
Had the election been fought hard ...
Had she bothered to turn up to the debates ...
... Then maybe she could get some sympathy. But she sought a mandate without seeking to put the effort in to get that mandate. Without bothering to show up to the debates. Being outclassed and outshone by Jeremy freaking Corbyn. The voters didn't do anything wrong, much as I regret the result, it was a result she deserved. In some ways a better result than she deserved.
I think that's the first time I have ever agreed with you!
* Well it is her fault for screwing up the campaign, but that doesn't absolve voters from their share of responsibility for the mess.
Mind, people who know him from Brighton have always known that he is a complete knob.
Good evening, everyone.
The fact that 30% would be 'delighted' or 'pleased' if Brexit was cancelled also shows that the passionate Remainers and Leavers are roughly equally matched, it is the 40% in the middle who will be decisive as to how Brexit turns out, if it takes place at all
YouGov last week also had the Deal getting 65% head to head against No Deal and 50% head to head with Remain, the Deal may not be most voters' first choice but it is almost everybody's second preference over the polarising options of Remain or Leave with No Deal
A whopping great majority was there to be won against Corbyn by a passionate and skilled leader. May was not that leader. She got the result she deserved after flopping the campaign.
TM called and managed to lose a 20 point lead at GE2017 by being so useless.
She then spent 2 years being a useless negotiator and brought back a useless deal.
The fact you think Austerity disabled people driven to suicide and the NHS on its knees is trivia says lots about you.
Surely she needs a large rabbit being pulled from the hat, otherwise if she has postponed the vote due to inevitable failure but achieved no reforms then what is the point her staying on? Her next speech has to be make or break surely?
As in a Shakespearean tragedy, there is a whole series of events which seem to be leading us to disaster, any one of which had it not occurred would have meant a better path:
- Reneging on a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty
- 2008 Financial crash
- Cameron unexpectedly winning a majority in 2015...
- ...and therefore having to delivery on the EU ref...
- ...without including any mandate thresholds
- Corbyn being included in the Labour leader shortlist
- Cameron having no plan for a Leave win...
- ... and then resigning immediately after the EU ref
- May going overboard with red lines to prove her Brexit commitment
- Invoking A50 so early with no desired end state agreed
- Calling and running an unneccessary and disasterous GE
I am sure there are others.
Maybe the ECJ A50 judgement is the first thing that has gone the right way to help avoid disaster?
Quality tyres are valuable on the black market, in a country where there is a chronic shortage of all sorts of goods.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46513571
The fact the numbers were due to her own poor performance negates that. Her weakness flows from her own incompetence.
The fact the PM has spent 2 years hard at work to get this Deal only to face the useless opposition who will as usual put party politics above the national interest and the ideologues of the DUP and ERG is another point
As for postponing the vote, it's simply a sign of desperation - which is my point. She doesn't have the numbers to implement the very reasonable deal, Labour are playing partisan games, No Deal is unthinkable, and revoking Article 50 and/or holding a referendum almost as unthinkable (although possibly the least unthinkable of the bad options).
She has spent most of the last year fighting elements of this Deal (like the backstop) only to surrender and meekly accept what Barnier and Varadkar had written. Anyone weak could do the latter.
The HoC is, like FPTP, set up to decide binary choices. With Brexit we now seem to have a ternary choice: No Deal, Deal, Remain, with no majority for any of those.
Tricky
Your view will not be how history judges her.