Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
I understand what you mean, because I face the same dilemma.
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
I always thought that Blair was more interested in the "International Statesman" side of the job and perfectly content to leave domestic stuff to the "genius" in No.11
I disgree, Remain vs Deal would be another way of saying Remain vs Leave, and although I think Remain would be a strong favourite, I don't think anyone can be confident they know what'll happen.
Another way of saying Remain vs Leave except with Leave opposed by a large chunk of Leavers, including almost all of the leading lights in that 'movement'.
Nah, if the Deal won vs Remain I would wash my socks.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
I understand what you mean, because I face the same dilemma.
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
Hmm. I think the damage to our kids through the lunacy of Brexit is enough in itself. To add insult to political injury by putting a half-wit disaster area in No 10 to really finish us off is a step too far. God knows what I will think if they put that twat Boris Johnson in charge though!
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
You can argue that Jeremy Corbyn did quite well in Scotland last year but you need to be very one-eyed to argue that Tony Blair's policies destroyed Labour support in Scotland when he left office with large numbers of Scottish Labour MPs in Parliament and when every Labour MP was returned at the following election also (at a time when Labour was otherwise losing support in the rest of Britain).
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
And, giving its ageing and declining membership, you could easily see the same fate coming the way of the Tories in England.
On what grounds? The Tories had a majority of 60 in England at GE17.
They would only collapse if they revoke Brexit and their largely Leave voting base shifted to UKIP or a new Farage led party
My parents were Tory members, although they never did anything active. I remember a time when, amongst middle class working age people in the shires, the Tories were the default choice and their membership spread across the broad swathe of civil society in southern England, rooted in the support they derived from educated people working in businesses large and small, and the professions.
The Tories now have a declining hollowed out membership comprising predominantly pensioners. Many of those educated professional and business people are horrified with their obsession with Brexit; hence the capital and much of its hinterland is progressively being lost to the party.
It isn't stretching things to suggest that the Tories awate the same fate that befell Labour in Scotland.
As I say, for the Conservatives to collapse, they'd need a rival on the right, as the SNP are a rival to Labour on the left.
The Conservative have lost support among upper middle class voters in England over the past 50 years, but gained support among working class voters to compensate. That has changed the profile of what a safe Conservative seat looks like, but not eroded their dominance in Southern England and the Midlands overall.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
I always thought that Blair was more interested in the "International Statesman" side of the job and perfectly content to leave domestic stuff to the "genius" in No.11
And he was actually quite good at it until his friend Bill left the White House and he made the disastrous decision to cosy up to his successor.
Managing a no deal and showing the hysterical nonsense to be overblown drama would achieve the same thing.
Sure, except that its not possible.
The Spectator had a very good article this week that disagreed. I agreed with its summary that the expected problems are all overblown but the biggest risks will be unexpected problems.
It is entirely possible to manage a no deal scenario but it is not optimal.
The biggest problem I see is that our relations with our largest trading partners would be in permafrost for the foreseeable. It is inconceivable that that would not have significant adverse consequences, in fact you can see the EU going out of their way to make sure there were. £39bn, nearly all of which we admit is due anyway, is a cheap price to avoid that.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
The electoral system probably doesn't make much difference, judging by the experience of countries that use PR. Right wing anti-EU voters are a third of the population, and under PR, there would be a party to represent them.
And radical socialists are about 20% of the population, and under PR, there would be a party to represent them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
Much like "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it," it is very difficult to persuade a politician of something when his or her opportunity for unshared power depends on not understanding it. And the more intelligent and resourceful a person is, the easier it is to find a rationalisation for almost anything.
Even with EUref2 a Leave v Deal then if Leave, Leave with the Deal or No Deal question would likely see Leave with the Deal win
Assume you mean Remain v Leave as Q1, not Leave v Deal. Leave v Deal would be a very exotic formulation!
But, look, of the 2 possibles in practice:
1. Ratify the Treaty, Yes or No. 2. Remain v Deal
May has a good chance in (1), not a snowballs in (2).
I disgree, Remain vs Deal would be another way of saying Remain vs Leave, and although I think Remain would be a strong favourite, I don't think anyone can be confident they know what'll happen.
Yes. It's the only possible option if there is to be a referendum - Remain vs Deal.
Some - @Charles looking at you - say simply fail to ratify the WA hence leave not with a formal "No Deal" (what that?) but without having made any preparations and see what comes. Oh and Charles, and others, think that the EU will of course give us a few side deals on bits and bobs, nothing too important, perhaps keep the planes in the sky, etc. Which of course constitutes a deal. Which is why 1) is a non-starter.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
I understand what you mean, because I face the same dilemma.
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
Hmm. I think the damage to our kids through the lunacy of Brexit is enough in itself. To add insult to political injury by putting a half-wit disaster area in No 10 to really finish us off is a step too far. God knows what I will think if they put that twat Boris Johnson in charge though!
Boris will never be in charge. He lacks support amongst MPs. He's also toxic in London. I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose his seat at the next election.
By the way, I agree with those saying that Corbyn could be in for a right shock if he did get his wish for a GE. There's no knowing how that wold pan out but my money would be on Tories Most Seats. He's had a very, very bad Brexit.
But as has been remarked many times, the centre has been under attack from populists on both left and right for the last decade. It is of course entirely possible that the same fate could befall the Conservatives but if it does, it will only happen if it's outflanked and outfought on the right.
Except that the lesson of Jeremy Corbyn is that centrist parties don't need to be replaced by more radical forces. If the party membership gets a decisive say on leadership decisions, they will tend to pick the individual aligned most closely to their views - i.e. whoever is furthest Left or Right, depending upon the party concerned.
The moment that Conservative MPs fail to keep a populist Right-wing candidate away from the membership ballot they'll win, and that will be it. Our politics is going the way of the American system: even if many, perhaps most, of the people would prefer pragmatism, in terms of the minority whose opinions really count - i.e. the people who howl the loudest and the most frequently - compromise equals heresy.
Even if the Brexit situation is definitively resolved (insofar as it ever can be) one way or the other, that won't change.
The Conservative members did, of course, pick Cameron over David Davis, and were on course to pick May over Leadsom.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
I always thought that Blair was more interested in the "International Statesman" side of the job and perfectly content to leave domestic stuff to the "genius" in No.11
Blair was a crusader in favour of FPTP! [Waves to TSE]
Tone argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes, according to P. Dorey in a 2008 book entitled "The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism.", per Wikipedia.
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
I understand what you mean, because I face the same dilemma.
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
I doubt if that will work. The most likely response to Corbynite Labour's brand of Venezuelan economics, melded with North London left-liberalism's genuflection at the altar of open borders and identity politics, would seem to be the emergence of a British Trump.
Personally, I try not to worry about such things anymore. To the extent that I continue to pay attention to what happens in the country it's (a) as a hobby/spectator sport, (b) in case any details from the news come in handy when I do the village pub quiz on one of my excursions to visit family in Norfolk, and (c) so that I can try to spot serious trouble coming, and do what little is possible to preserve some of my meagre wealth in the event of a generalised economic collapse. I can't influence what goes on in politics - neither through my (completely worthless) vote nor by any other means - so there's no point in worrying about it, any more than there is in worrying about the inevitability of one's own eventual death. Que será, será...
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
The difference I see is that the Labour party is split between pro and anti Corbynites. Its quite personal. Once he goes back to his allotment it is not difficult to see the party coming together again. In contrast the Tories are split on a fundamental (for them, at least) question of identity and their positions are irreconcilable. They are going to split.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
David Cameron was also highly critical of AV in particular. Allowing people into the UK parliament who did not finish first in their constituency was described by Dave as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." - David Cameron. "Why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
Mr _F, thanks for your opinion, but not one that I would recognise. Contrary to what many people think, there is still a very large constituency of moderate Conservatives (you might call them Clarke-ites). They do not have a majority in the activist base anymore, but they represent a very large part of the Conservative vote, if not a majority, and like me, think Brexit has wrecked the party's reputation for economic competence. The more the Conservative Party shifts to the right the greater the chance they will see a catastrophic loss of support. Even many of the more right wing less educated activists I knew were not tempted by UKIP or BNP, and they never will, and credit to them for that. They would remain as the rump, Continuity ERG Tory Party.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
Whereas revoking Brexit would likely mean the Tories never get back in power again, never mind out of power for a generation. They would be overtaken by UKIP or a new Farage led party and suffer the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada who were almost wiped out at the 1993 election and overtaken by the populist right-wing Reform Party.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back in 13 years later, in Canada the Tories eventually had to merge with Reform's successor party to get back to power
..
Indeed. The Tory party machine will need to decide whether it wishes to retain the centre group, which has more chance of reaching out to the centre/centre left and therefore form majority government, or it carries on being dictated to by the right wing who demographically are only likely to get smaller and smaller as their regressive ideology dies with them.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
I'd say that the more fundamental problem (from your point of view) is that most people hold views that centrists dislike - left wing, right wing, or anti-EU. First past the post used to be very good at marginalising such voters, but now it isn't.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
The difference I see is that the Labour party is split between pro and anti Corbynites. Its quite personal. Once he goes back to allotment it is not difficult to see the party coming together again. In contrast the Tories are split on a fundamental (for them, at least) question of identity and their positions are irreconcilable. They are going to split.
I think Momentum will ensure that the Labour Party does not come back together in a form that is recognisable to Labour's more centrist supporters
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
The EU would presumably only extend for Deal vs Remain, which would guarantee an outcome that they can work with - and then only if we can organise and hold the referendum in time, and I'm not at all sure that's possible without running into serious problems with regard to the European Parliament elections.
This also assumes that neither the DUP nor some members of the ERG-wing of her own party wouldn't make a successful attempt to pull the plug on the Government under such circumstances, which is far from a given.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
Ah, clever. If you only pick two data points, the omission of 2015 is less glaring.
.
There were certainly warning signs that a collapse could happen.
lection. Unlike many I was not surprised to see Labour make some gains in 2017 - though seven seats was very much at the top end of my expectations. At the end of April 2017 polls in Scotland had Labour as low as 13% yet in early June the party managed to exceed 27%. I suspect there is a large pool of voters who will switch between Labour and SNP - and back again - depending on whether the election relates to Holyrood or Westminster. I believe that the context of the campaign will be important. If the national GB polls indicate the strong possibility of Labour gains and a change of Government , I would expect Scotland to 'join in the party' as it were with many voters switching from SNP back to their Labour roots. On the other hand, if the GB polls point to a clear Tory win , I would expect Labour to find it difficult to make progress.
What's your time period for this assertion? And which referendum campaign do you mean.
The initial SNP breakthrough at the 1974 elections was concentrated in formerly strong Tory areas - particularly in NE Scotland - with a couple of gains from Labour in Dundee and Strirlingshire.In 1979 the SNP were reduced to just two seats - Western Isles and a Dundee seat - with the Tories regaining all the seats lost five years earlier.Tory voters who had switched to the SNP in 1974.returned home.The Tories suffered heavy losses in 1987 and were reduced to ten seats with their vote share sharply reduced.Labour appeared to pick up tactical votes from both SNP and the LibDems with the Tories losing support to both smaller parties. SNP representation thereafter was largely confined to Banff & Buchan, Angus and Moray until 1997. In both the 1987 and 2010 elections Labour polled circa 42%. The Tories dropped from 24% to 16.7% with the SNP moving from 14% to 20%. Overwhelmingly those voters will now have returned to the Tories with the SNP being more than compensated at Labour's expense. Edit - I was referring to the 2014 Independence Referendum.
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
The difference I see is that the Labour party is split between pro and anti Corbynites. Its quite personal. Once he goes back to allotment it is not difficult to see the party coming together again. In contrast the Tories are split on a fundamental (for them, at least) question of identity and their positions are irreconcilable. They are going to split.
I think Momentum will ensure that the Labour Party does not come back together in a form that is recognisable to Labour's more centrist supporters
Indeed. My understanding is that the Left now controls the party machinery (through the NEC) and that the threshold of support required in the PLP by a successor candidate to Corbyn is low. The party membership would then be very likely to back such a candidate.
If the centre-Left were somehow to regain the ascendancy then they could try to change the rules to something more like the run-off system used by the Tories, in an attempt to put the Left back in its box. But I doubt they'll get the chance.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
Agreed. If Leavers were swindled last time, it is because they were offered a choice between the unacceptable and the unimplementable. Won't happen again.
Mr _F, thanks for your opinion, but not one that I would recognise. Contrary to what many people think, there is still a very large constituency of moderate Conservatives (you might call them Clarke-ites). They do not have a majority in the activist base anymore, but they represent a very large part of the Conservative vote, if not a majority, and like me, think Brexit has wrecked the party's reputation for economic competence. The more the Conservative Party shifts to the right the greater the chance they will see a catastrophic loss of support. Even many of the more right wing less educated activists I knew were not tempted by UKIP or BNP, and they never will, and credit to them for that. They would remain as the rump, Continuity ERG Tory Party.
Conservative voters are certainly not as hardline as Conservative members, but a very large majority are opposed to EU membership.
Polling in Scotland is likely to be very volatile. For many years the polls were understating the real level of Tory support simply because so many of them were voting SNP on an anti-Labour tactical basis.That mindset was rather turned on its head by the Referendum campaign with the result that those Tories have returned home and many - though not Big G and others - would now be more inclined to vote Labour in key seats on a pro-Union anti -SNP tactical basis. In contrast, Labour has lost votes in droves to the SNP post Referendum, and what remains unclear is the extent to which it can recover such support in the context of a Westminster election. Unlike many I was not surprised to see Labour make some gains in 2017 - though seven seats was very much at the top end of my expectations. At the end of April 2017 polls in Scotland had Labour as low as 13% yet in early June the party managed to exceed 27%. I suspect there is a large pool of voters who will switch between Labour and SNP - and back again - depending on whether the election relates to Holyrood or Westminster. I believe that the context of the campaign will be important. If the national GB polls indicate the strong possibility of Labour gains and a change of Government , I would expect Scotland to 'join in the party' as it were with many voters switching from SNP back to their Labour roots. On the other hand, if the GB polls point to a clear Tory win , I would expect Labour to find it difficult to make progress.
But the surprise came because people weren't paying attention. These are the vote shares in Scotland from 2007 on:
2007 SPE - SNP 31 Lab 29 (regional vote) 2007 Loc - SNP 28 Lab 28 (first pref) 2009 EP - SNP 29 Lab 21 2010 UKP - Lab 42 SNP 20 2011 SPE - SNP 44 Lab 26 (regional vote) 2012 Loc - SNP 32 Lab 31 (first pref) 2014 EP - SNP 29 Lab 26 2015 UKP - SNP 50 Lab 24 2016 SPE - SNP 42 Lab 19 (regional vote - note: Con 23) 2017 Loc - SNP 32 Lab 20 (first pref - note: Con 25) 2017 UKP - SNP 37 Lab 27 (note: Con 29)
In other words, Labour had been performing way above their base level in Westminster election for around ten years before it came crashing down for them in 2015. It wasn't the 2015 election that was exceptional in the crushing win for the SNP (other than in scale); it was the 2010 baseline that was exceptional, as the only election Labour had won.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
In which case you cannot ask if they wish to Remain because no one is being honest about what that means as no one knows. The only thing we can be assured of is it will not be the same as it was 2 years ago or 4 years ago or a decade ago. This was the fundamental dishonesty of Remain at the time of the referendum and still is; the lie that staying in means nothing changes.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
One of them? What does remain mean? Do we still have our opt outs, our rebate, the EMA (which moves this month), the EIB, our MEPs? Where is the EU going next? It is very difficult at this stage to see what remain would mean.
But you're right that the deal/WA is the start of a process the end of which is uncertain too. Personally, I don't have a great problem with this. I think the electorate are capable of taking intangibles into account. But I am not so sure our political class agree, especially after they marked the last lot of homework.
Personally, I try not to worry about such things anymore. To the extent that I continue to pay attention to what happens in the country it's (a) as a hobby/spectator sport, (b) in case any details from the news come in handy when I do the village pub quiz on one of my excursions to visit family in Norfolk, and (c) so that I can try to spot serious trouble coming, and do what little is possible to preserve some of my meagre wealth in the event of a generalised economic collapse. I can't influence what goes on in politics - neither through my (completely worthless) vote nor by any other means - so there's no point in worrying about it, any more than there is in worrying about the inevitability of one's own eventual death. Que será, será...
I know what you mean. It does seem simpler just to say "A plague on all their houses" and walk away from politics. The problem is that the fanatics, nutters, etc do turn up and vote for their own brands of lunacy. If we leave them a clear field.... well... it would make the current mess look like a chimps tea party in comparison.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In the unlikely event of a Deal/Remain plebiscite actually occurring I would actually expect Remain to win, on a significantly reduced turnout. Available evidence suggests that the Deal is widely disliked and, to the extent that a second referendum will provoke any enthusiasm, it'll be on the Remain side.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
I always thought that Blair was more interested in the "International Statesman" side of the job and perfectly content to leave domestic stuff to the "genius" in No.11
And he was actually quite good at it until his friend Bill left the White House and he made the disastrous decision to cosy up to his successor.
The EU would presumably only extend for Deal vs Remain, which would guarantee an outcome that they can work with - and then only if we can organise and hold the referendum in time, and I'm not at all sure that's possible without running into serious problems with regard to the European Parliament elections.
This also assumes that neither the DUP nor some members of the ERG-wing of her own party wouldn't make a successful attempt to pull the plug on the Government under such circumstances, which is far from a given.
I'm sure the EU would prefer Deal vs Remain but why not allow the straight farming out of the Meaningful Vote question to the public. A 'yes' (to ratify) would resolve matters. A 'no' would resume the impasse and possibly lead to Remain. It's either clear win or neutral with potential upside.
As to getting such a referendum through parliament, I can see a strong case, since if parliament were to block it, having failed to agree on any alternative way forward, it would risk looking very bad indeed.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
I understand what you mean, because I face the same dilemma.
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
Hmm. I think the damage to our kids through the lunacy of Brexit is enough in itself. To add insult to political injury by putting a half-wit disaster area in No 10 to really finish us off is a step too far. God knows what I will think if they put that twat Boris Johnson in charge though!
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
The difference I see is that the Labour party is split between pro and anti Corbynites. Its quite personal. Once he goes back to allotment it is not difficult to see the party coming together again. In contrast the Tories are split on a fundamental (for them, at least) question of identity and their positions are irreconcilable. They are going to split.
I think Momentum will ensure that the Labour Party does not come back together in a form that is recognisable to Labour's more centrist supporters
Indeed. My understanding is that the Left now controls the party machinery (through the NEC) and that the threshold of support required in the PLP by a successor candidate to Corbyn is low. The party membership would then be very likely to back such a candidate.
If the centre-Left were somehow to regain the ascendancy then they could try to change the rules to something more like the run-off system used by the Tories, in an attempt to put the Left back in its box. But I doubt they'll get the chance.
Like with Brexit, a wantonly destructive mad genie with Tourette's syndrome is well and truly out of the bottle and shouting "f*** off" to anyone that dares to question it's behaviour
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
That is my point. That is why it has to be Deal vs Remain. Unless you think that Remain is unknown.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In the unlikely event of a Deal/Remain plebiscite actually occurring I would actually expect Remain to win, on a significantly reduced turnout. Available evidence suggests that the Deal is widely disliked and, to the extent that a second referendum will provoke any enthusiasm, it'll be on the Remain side.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
It's extraordinary that, given their mistake upon mistake, and missed opportunity upon missed opportunity, the government have now come up with the least dreadful way of leaving and "the public" don't like it.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
One of them? What does remain mean? Do we still have our opt outs, our rebate, the EMA (which moves this month), the EIB, our MEPs? Where is the EU going next? It is very difficult at this stage to see what remain would mean.
But you're right that the deal/WA is the start of a process the end of which is uncertain too. Personally, I don't have a great problem with this. I think the electorate are capable of taking intangibles into account. But I am not so sure our political class agree, especially after they marked the last lot of homework.
Let's give the government that modicum of credit that the flavour of Remain would be spelled out (ie no Dave's deal, rebate/no rebate, etc).
One of them? What does remain mean? Do we still have our opt outs, our rebate, the EMA (which moves this month), the EIB, our MEPs? Where is the EU going next? It is very difficult at this stage to see what remain would mean.
On the contrary it's extremely clear, because the ECJ have ruled on the matter. The answers to your first set of questions are Yes, Yes, Probably Not, Yes, and Yes respectively.
As for where the EU is going next, of course no option can ever bind the future, but the exact meaning of Revoke is as clear as anything ever can be.
David Cameron was also highly critical of AV in particular. Allowing people into the UK parliament who did not finish first in their constituency was described by Dave as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." - David Cameron. "Why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
TSE are you reading this? Hello, TSE!
Compared to the current bunch, so many of whom are clearly objectionable, how is that not an improvement?
I don't really share that view , because I do not believe that Brexit is anything like as salient an issue -both in Scotland and the rest of GB - as the commentariat would have us believe. Most people are thoroughly sick to death of it , and in a General Election the issue will be overridden by other matters - as happened in 2017.
I do agree with that sentiment. I particularly think that if the election is after Brexit, with a deal, I mean, not with a crash out, then it will recede quite quickly as a political issue between the 2 main parties. But if we get a GE before Brexit, I have to think the issue will dominate.
However, a GE before Brexit seems to me unlikely.
The 2017 election was pre-Brexit and called specifically to gain a mandate on that issue. Nebertheless. it was not a Brexit election.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
That is my point. That is why it has to be Deal vs Remain. Unless you think that Remain is unknown.
As a certain American once said: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice versa."
Conspiracy theorists and UKIPers must love this quote!
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I take your point Nigel but the evidence does appear to contradict that. Even many (perhaps a majority?) of those who voted Remain are open in their opinion that they dislike the EU but were afraid of the consequences of leaving. There really is very little love for the EU in much of the UK which is one reason Remain had such a hard time of it. I suspect 'Reluctant Remain' was one of the biggest groupings amongst all voters in 2016.
Personally, I try not to worry about such things anymore. To the extent that I continue to pay attention to what happens in the country it's (a) as a hobby/spectator sport, (b) in case any details from the news come in handy when I do the village pub quiz on one of my excursions to visit family in Norfolk, and (c) so that I can try to spot serious trouble coming, and do what little is possible to preserve some of my meagre wealth in the event of a generalised economic collapse. I can't influence what goes on in politics - neither through my (completely worthless) vote nor by any other means - so there's no point in worrying about it, any more than there is in worrying about the inevitability of one's own eventual death. Que será, será...
I know what you mean. It does seem simpler just to say "A plague on all their houses" and walk away from politics. The problem is that the fanatics, nutters, etc do turn up and vote for their own brands of lunacy. If we leave them a clear field.... well... it would make the current mess look like a chimps tea party in comparison.
I don't think it's so much "a plague on all their houses" as just a generalised sense that one vote represents such a minuscule contribution to the total that it is of no functional importance whatsoever. In the last Parliamentary election where I live, 55,764 votes were cast and 32,587 of those went to the Tory. Under such circumstances the only value in trudging to the polling station is in the additional exercise.
That said, the general duplicity and incompetence of the political class does serve as an additional reason to stay away.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
Ah but no. You cannot have NO DEAL as an active choice. No argument about that, for all the reasons rehearsed. This is different.
A YES to ratify means we leave with the Deal.
A NO does not mean we leave with nothing in place. It puts us back to where we are now. Impasse not broken. Could lead to Remain. Could lead to leaving with the government and the EU using best efforts to minimize disruption. Or something else.
What she will essentially be saying (at the lecturn) is ...
"Parliament have rejected this deal but I - your Prime Minister - think it is the best available and a good one and we should sign it. Do you, the people, my people, agree with me?"
I can see that happening, and I think it would be not unreasonable.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
Not a majority to implement any concrete programme.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
Ah but no. You cannot have NO DEAL as an active choice. No argument about that, for all the reasons rehearsed. This is different.
A YES to ratify means we leave with the Deal.
A NO does not mean we leave with nothing in place. It puts us back to where we are now. Impasse not broken. Could lead to Remain. Could lead to leaving with the government and the EU using best efforts to minimize disruption. Or something else.
What she will essentially be saying (at the lecturn) is ...
"Parliament have rejected this deal but I - your Prime Minister - think it is the best available and a good one and we should sign it. Do you, the people, my people, agree with me?"
I can see that happening, and I think it would be not unreasonable.
Time is short for either March 29th on the one hand, or a six-month extension and a blank piece of paper on the other. The latter of which the EU would be by no means certain to accept.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In that one, I would be a buyer in size of Remain at 60.
So I definitely would, if that comes to pass, have lost the faith :-))
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
Not a majority to implement any concrete programme.
I agree, But, whereas in the past, politicians could ignore them, while fighting for the centre ground, now they can't (and that's true of many countries, now).
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
HY's main problem is that as soon as a thought or poll result pops into his head he posts it up here, without pausing for an instant to think it through.
He makes some good points but has real blind spots because he only views anything through the prism of what is best for the Conservative Party
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I take your point Nigel but the evidence does appear to contradict that. Even many (perhaps a majority?) of those who voted Remain are open in their opinion that they dislike the EU but were afraid of the consequences of leaving. There really is very little love for the EU in much of the UK which is one reason Remain had such a hard time of it. I suspect 'Reluctant Remain' was one of the biggest groupings amongst all voters in 2016.
Perhaps true, but some of us reluctant remainers would be considerably less reluctant a second time around.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In that one, I would be a buyer in size of Remain at 60.
So I definitely would, if that comes to pass, have lost the faith :-))
I think a large number of people, perhaps large enough, would now see staying in the EU as having been the cause of all these problems and that leaving would solve them. Wrong-headed IMO but I can see it happening. Likewise those for whom Dave's Deal swung it. Or those who will let their natural British pig-headedness come to the fore - as perception-wise, the Deal would be our own making while Remaining we would be in the hands entirely of the EU.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
One of them? What does remain mean? Do we still have our opt outs, our rebate, the EMA (which moves this month), the EIB, our MEPs? Where is the EU going next? It is very difficult at this stage to see what remain would mean.
But you're right that the deal/WA is the start of a process the end of which is uncertain too. Personally, I don't have a great problem with this. I think the electorate are capable of taking intangibles into account. But I am not so sure our political class agree, especially after they marked the last lot of homework.
Let's give the government that modicum of credit that the flavour of Remain would be spelled out (ie no Dave's deal, rebate/no rebate, etc).
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
That’s likely to be about the worst referendum question of all, as who’s going to be campaigning for the specific deal - as opposed to no deal, a better deal or remain?
The deal could go down harder than AV did, which leaves us back where we are now but having burned up a load more time.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
The public is not going to be asked to vote in a referendum where no one knows what one of the answers means (again).
One of them? What does remain mean? Do we still have our opt outs, our rebate, the EMA (which moves this month), the EIB, our MEPs? Where is the EU going next? It is very difficult at this stage to see what remain would mean.
But you're right that the deal/WA is the start of a process the end of which is uncertain too. Personally, I don't have a great problem with this. I think the electorate are capable of taking intangibles into account. But I am not so sure our political class agree, especially after they marked the last lot of homework.
Let's give the government that modicum of credit that the flavour of Remain would be spelled out (ie no Dave's deal, rebate/no rebate, etc).
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I take your point Nigel but the evidence does appear to contradict that. Even many (perhaps a majority?) of those who voted Remain are open in their opinion that they dislike the EU but were afraid of the consequences of leaving. There really is very little love for the EU in much of the UK which is one reason Remain had such a hard time of it. I suspect 'Reluctant Remain' was one of the biggest groupings amongst all voters in 2016.
It is a fair argument. Though I have argued vociferously that Brexit is a mistake, I am not a lover of the institution. However, Sean_F said "most" were "anti-EU". Being in favour of withdrawal does not mean one is actively "anti-EU" (whatever that might mean). I think the majority of people, including many that voted one way or the other, really don't give a flying fuck! Obviously that doesn't include you or me!
Morning all and on thread, as I said last week on here it would be somewhat ironic if Jeremy Corbyn and Labour succeed next week and force a General Election only to see Theresa May secure an overall majority in the resulting election. With e.g. Con 40, Lab 36, LibDem 10, Green 2 and UKIP 1 with the numbers being basically unchanged from last year but Lab down from 27 to 25 (which would be remarkable given all Scottish polling) according to Baxter that would give Con 327 Lab 246 LibDem 18 SNP 37, Green 1 and PC 3 giving Theresa May a majority of 4. That ignores the likely "Brexit" factor working for and against both main parties and I reckon there would be more down for Labour than for Tories due to Brexit.
Or a minority of about 76, depending whether you count the ERG or not. That is the problem, her party is disintegrating and there will be no majority even if she were to win an election. It is not a problem unique to the Tories but it is most acute there.
It only appears most acute in the Conservatives because they're in power. Corbyn had 80% of his MPs no confidence him and as someone wholly unsuited in style to the demands of government, those divisions would reappear pretty quickly after an election, once the honeymoon period wore off.
The difference I see is that the Labour party is split between pro and anti Corbynites. Its quite personal. Once he goes back to his allotment it is not difficult to see the party coming together again. In contrast the Tories are split on a fundamental (for them, at least) question of identity and their positions are irreconcilable. They are going to split.
People have been saying that for decades and it hasn't happened.
I disagree about Corbyn as well: he was much more consequence than cause, and the reasons that propelled him to win in 2015 could equally propel a successor from the populist left to succeed him.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
That’s likely to be about the worst referendum question of all, as who’s going to be campaigning for the specific deal - as opposed to no deal, a better deal or remain?
The deal could go down harder than AV did, which leaves us back where we are now but having burned up a load more time.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In the unlikely event of a Deal/Remain plebiscite actually occurring I would actually expect Remain to win, on a significantly reduced turnout. Available evidence suggests that the Deal is widely disliked and, to the extent that a second referendum will provoke any enthusiasm, it'll be on the Remain side.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
It's extraordinary that, given their mistake upon mistake, and missed opportunity upon missed opportunity, the government have now come up with the least dreadful way of leaving and "the public" don't like it.
What the fuck do the public want?
Most of the population falls into three camps: Stay in, Get completely out, and Don't know/Don't care.
One can construct a good argument to the effect that the Deal represents something close to the "average" position of the population as a whole, but unfortunately for Theresa May the middle-of-the-road answer doesn't necessarily guarantee a position around which everyone can unite.
The deal is rather like asking one hundred people whether, offered the choice, they would prefer to wear navy or brown trousers - and then, based on the result being split down the middle, offering everyone a free pair of trousers with one leg navy and the other leg brown. You'll get a few takers for such eccentric apparel, but most people would decry them as hideous and chuck them straight in the bin.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I take your point Nigel but the evidence does appear to contradict that. Even many (perhaps a majority?) of those who voted Remain are open in their opinion that they dislike the EU but were afraid of the consequences of leaving. There really is very little love for the EU in much of the UK which is one reason Remain had such a hard time of it. I suspect 'Reluctant Remain' was one of the biggest groupings amongst all voters in 2016.
It is a fair argument. Though I have argued vociferously that Brexit is a mistake, I am not a lover of the institution. However, Sean_F said "most" were "anti-EU". Being in favour of withdrawal does not mean one is actively "anti-EU" (whatever that might mean). I think the majority of people, including many that voted one way or the other, really don't give a flying fuck! Obviously that doesn't include you or me!
To clarify, I was using the term "anti-EU" to mean in favour of withdrawal.
Everyone bangs on about Labour being hijacked by the far-left / maoists. It seems equally clear that the Conservative party has been hijacked by its own more extreme members.
Both parties are paralysed by their own collection of nutters.
It is because the activist base has become more and more extreme. The more moderate/centre ground people (such as myself and others I know) may be to blame for leaving the field. All parties made the mistake of thinking it was more "democratic" for the activist base to vote for leaders than it was to leave it to the MPs that actually have a much broader and larger support base
Neither party is representative any more. They are both "special interest" parties and we only have two parties to vote for (no SNP down here).
Those silly sods known as the Libs should be recruiting moderate members. If ever they have a time, it must be now and yet Uncle Vince and his party doze quietly amongst the ruins.
"End of days" stuff.....
I think they would have a point if they blamed the electoral system. There has always been an element of Hobson's choice in British elections, but rarely has it been more the case than now. My natural inclination is to not vote Tory at the moment over Brexit, but such an indulgence by enough people might bring a neo-communist through the door of No 10. What does one do?!
The Electoral System is a very large part of the problem. The trouble is that it is self-sustaining. The big Parties benefit from it so have no interest in reform.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
I always thought that Blair was more interested in the "International Statesman" side of the job and perfectly content to leave domestic stuff to the "genius" in No.11
Blair was a crusader in favour of FPTP! [Waves to TSE]
Tone argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes, according to P. Dorey in a 2008 book entitled "The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism.", per Wikipedia.
I think he was in favour of AV, wasn't he? But then that only gives small *centrist* parties disproportionate power, and works against small extremist ones, so Blair could happily live with that.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In the unlikely event of a Deal/Remain plebiscite actually occurring I would actually expect Remain to win, on a significantly reduced turnout. Available evidence suggests that the Deal is widely disliked and, to the extent that a second referendum will provoke any enthusiasm, it'll be on the Remain side.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
It's extraordinary that, given their mistake upon mistake, and missed opportunity upon missed opportunity, the government have now come up with the least dreadful way of leaving and "the public" don't like it.
What the fuck do the public want?
Most of the population falls into three camps: Stay in, Get completely out, and Don't know/Don't care.
One can construct a good argument to the effect that the Deal represents something close to the "average" position of the population as a whole, but unfortunately for Theresa May the middle-of-the-road answer doesn't necessarily guarantee a position around which everyone can unite.
The deal is rather like asking one hundred people whether, offered the choice, they would prefer to wear navy or brown trousers - and then, based on the result being split down the middle, offering everyone a free pair of trousers with one leg navy and the other leg brown. You'll get a few takers for such eccentric apparel, but most people would decry them as hideous and chuck them straight in the bin.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
Not a majority to implement any concrete programme.
I agree, But, whereas in the past, politicians could ignore them, while fighting for the centre ground, now they can't (and that's true of many countries, now).
Well, that's democracy, then. Of all the arguments people use for and against certain systems, one that has least traction with me is "such-and-such marginalises whatever-opinion, and this is a good thing." In such circumstance, switching to a system which allows all stripes of opinion to be heard, even the unpleasant one, is not an issue. It's democracy.
If these radicals (all over the spectrum) can form a coherent coalition in Government - that's democracy in action. I may well vehemently dislike it, but tough. The "issue" (in my eyes) wouldn't be with the electoral system, but with the people voting. Tough luck on me, really.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
I take your point Nigel but the evidence does appear to contradict that. Even many (perhaps a majority?) of those who voted Remain are open in their opinion that they dislike the EU but were afraid of the consequences of leaving. There really is very little love for the EU in much of the UK which is one reason Remain had such a hard time of it. I suspect 'Reluctant Remain' was one of the biggest groupings amongst all voters in 2016.
It is a fair argument. Though I have argued vociferously that Brexit is a mistake, I am not a lover of the institution. However, Sean_F said "most" were "anti-EU". Being in favour of withdrawal does not mean one is actively "anti-EU" (whatever that might mean). I think the majority of people, including many that voted one way or the other, really don't give a flying fuck! Obviously that doesn't include you or me!
To clarify, I was using the term "anti-EU" to mean in favour of withdrawal.
In which case "most" was incorrect. I am just being pedantic for fun!
That’s likely to be about the worst referendum question of all, as who’s going to be campaigning for the specific deal - as opposed to no deal, a better deal or remain?
The deal could go down harder than AV did, which leaves us back where we are now but having burned up a load more time.
The government, and TM in particular, would campaign for the Deal. No different than if it were the Deal against Remain.
All the referendum options are flawed in one way or another, which is why I hope and pray there is no resort to one, but this one IMO is the least flawed.
And I really do disagree with you on the result. I would give the Deal an excellent chance. I think the public has an appetite for resolution and having this one in the rear view mirror.
Most of the population falls into three camps: Stay in, Get completely out, and Don't know/Don't care.
One can construct a good argument to the effect that the Deal represents something close to the "average" position of the population as a whole, but unfortunately for Theresa May the middle-of-the-road answer doesn't necessarily guarantee a position around which everyone can unite.
The deal is rather like asking one hundred people whether, offered the choice, they would prefer to wear navy or brown trousers - and then, based on the result being split down the middle, offering everyone a free pair of trousers with one leg navy and the other leg brown. You'll get a few takers for such eccentric apparel, but most people would decry them as hideous and chuck them straight in the bin.
I wonder how many of the "stay in" camp are reconciled stay in-ers. Many, I would warrant. If so, then they would likely or possibly support the deal as they might appreciate that given where we are, it is a starting point.
For the Get completely out-ers, they are mistaking the WA for the final agreement. In theory they may get up in arms about the backstop but in the medium term they could easily have what they want. So illogical for them to dislike the WA so much.
For the whatevers, then surely they would want to avoid some of the chaos that most people, IDS and Mark Francois apart, are telling them would follow no deal?
So, May wasted an entire month and the absolute maximum she's managed to extract from the EU is an EUCO communique restating what the withdrawal agreement already says, and a letter from Tusk to Juncker restating what the withdrawal agreement already says.
Good to know they're taking her displacement activity seriously.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
Not a majority to implement any concrete programme.
I agree, But, whereas in the past, politicians could ignore them, while fighting for the centre ground, now they can't (and that's true of many countries, now).
Well, that's democracy, then. Of all the arguments people use for and against certain systems, one that has least traction with me is "such-and-such marginalises whatever-opinion, and this is a good thing." In such circumstance, switching to a system which allows all stripes of opinion to be heard, even the unpleasant one, is not an issue. It's democracy.
If these radicals (all over the spectrum) can form a coherent coalition in Government - that's democracy in action. I may well vehemently dislike it, but tough. The "issue" (in my eyes) wouldn't be with the electoral system, but with the people voting. Tough luck on me, really.
I would agree with that.
My point was that FPTP used to work to marginalise such views, but now it does not.
So, May wasted an entire month and the absolute maximum she's managed to extract from the EU is an EUCO communique restating what the withdrawal agreement already says, and a letter from Tusk to Juncker restating what the withdrawal agreement already says.
Good to know they're taking her displacement activity seriously.
A plurality of Tory voters back No Deal, most of the rest back Brexit with the Deal.
So no, the Tories will be punished less for No Deal than for revoking Brexit, though the Deal is still their best option
You are assuming that the real-life consequences of No Deal would have no effect on people's views, That is, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. The most likely effect would be the make the Tories unelectable for a generation, provided only that Labour got its act vaguely together.
I think HYUFD must have had a firmware update over Christmas or something. I'm perpetually baffled by how he seemlessly segues from one position to another, completely contradictory one. Presumably there was some experience or conversation or something that actually led to this change, but since all he ever wants to do is quote woefully insufficient chunks of evidence as if they're cast-iron proofs, it'll forever remain an enigma.
HY's main problem is that as soon as a thought or poll result pops into his head he posts it up here, without pausing for an instant to think it through.
He makes some good points but has real blind spots because he only views anything through the prism of what is best for the Conservative Party
The irony being that we have reached the point where all of the potential ways forward are bad for them.
The 2017 election was pre-Brexit and called specifically to gain a mandate on that issue. Nebertheless. it was not a Brexit election.
That is true. But I wonder if the same would hold for an election right in the middle of this Brexit endgame, when leaving is potentially just weeks away.
But, yes, you might be right. It is easy to get swept up in all of this and assume erroneously that that applies to most other people too.
So, May wasted an entire month and the absolute maximum she's managed to extract from the EU is an EUCO communique restating what the withdrawal agreement already says, and a letter from Tusk to Juncker restating what the withdrawal agreement already says.
Good to know they're taking her displacement activity seriously.
Tweets 5, 6 and 8 are quite significant, though.
Yes. It seems maybe the government has been secretly hoping that LV would crack on the backstop. I've heard it suggested on here many times as a possibility.
But if his job depends on not doing so, then it doesn't sound like a realistic prospect, and basing your strategy on such blind hope is foolish. Wasting a MONTH on it is inexcusable.
Time is short for either March 29th on the one hand, or a six-month extension and a blank piece of paper on the other. The latter of which the EU would be by no means certain to accept.
Certainly no referendum can be done by 29/3.
Anyway, enough of this trash talk, referendum go hang yourself, the Deal is going through.
Time is short for either March 29th on the one hand, or a six-month extension and a blank piece of paper on the other. The latter of which the EU would be by no means certain to accept.
Certainly no referendum can be done by 29/3.
Anyway, enough of this trash talk, referendum go hang yourself, the Deal is going through.
Damn well is.
Assuming 22 weeks is the minimum time a referendum can be arranged in, according to the UCL constitution unit's research, that would mean we'd be looking at a referendum end of June, and provisional departure end of September, assuming the EU will grant us a six month extension to A50.
Mr _F: I am not sure it is "most". Even on the subject of the EU that was an electoral opinion at a point in time. If we extended the demographic to the 16 age group it might be difficult to say "most" and indeed if one also included "don't or won't vote" (also known as don't care), then there was no absolute majority for Leave, so while there is a democratic mandate for Leave, you cannot assume "most" people dislike the EU.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
What I mean is that if you add together the numbers of right wing anti-EU voters, radical socialists, and other people with opinions that centrist politicians dislike, they would make up a majority of the electorate between them.
Not a majority to implement any concrete programme.
I agree, But, whereas in the past, politicians could ignore them, while fighting for the centre ground, now they can't (and that's true of many countries, now).
Well, that's democracy, then. Of all the arguments people use for and against certain systems, one that has least traction with me is "such-and-such marginalises whatever-opinion, and this is a good thing." In such circumstance, switching to a system which allows all stripes of opinion to be heard, even the unpleasant one, is not an issue. It's democracy.
If these radicals (all over the spectrum) can form a coherent coalition in Government - that's democracy in action. I may well vehemently dislike it, but tough. The "issue" (in my eyes) wouldn't be with the electoral system, but with the people voting. Tough luck on me, really.
I would agree with that.
My point was that FPTP used to work to marginalise such views, but now it does not.
Indeed. Worse, though, it can bottle things up until they become more radical than the otherwise would have done. The EU-scepticism and potential Referendum Party/UKIP/similar vote was held down by FPTP for many years by "wasted vote-ism" and being denied representation against its (repressed) share.
It's been pointed out several times that a release of the pressure earlier (eg at Lisbon time, or even earlier), would probably have seen off a lot of the dislike and disquiet. Representing more views in Parliament to more fairly reflect the views outside of Parliament... well, maybe the time has come.
Time is short for either March 29th on the one hand, or a six-month extension and a blank piece of paper on the other. The latter of which the EU would be by no means certain to accept.
Certainly no referendum can be done by 29/3.
Anyway, enough of this trash talk, referendum go hang yourself, the Deal is going through.
Time is short for either March 29th on the one hand, or a six-month extension and a blank piece of paper on the other. The latter of which the EU would be by no means certain to accept.
Certainly no referendum can be done by 29/3.
Anyway, enough of this trash talk, referendum go hang yourself, the Deal is going through.
That’s likely to be about the worst referendum question of all, as who’s going to be campaigning for the specific deal - as opposed to no deal, a better deal or remain?
The deal could go down harder than AV did, which leaves us back where we are now but having burned up a load more time.
The government, and TM in particular, would campaign for the Deal. No different than if it were the Deal against Remain.
All the referendum options are flawed in one way or another, which is why I hope and pray there is no resort to one, but this one IMO is the least flawed.
And I really do disagree with you on the result. I would give the Deal an excellent chance. I think the public has an appetite for resolution and having this one in the rear view mirror.
I think that a number of people would resign from the government if they tried to impose collective responsibility on the matter. Half the Conservatives and all of Labour, SNP, LDs, Greens and UKIP would be against. I don’t see how it wins.
Just about the only worse referendum would be Deal v Remain, which, setting aside how it ever gets proposed in Parliament, would lead to a widespread boycott and disruption, and probably finishes with Remain winning on a <50% turnout, and UKIP polling >30% at the next election.
Police are slammed for showing CCTV of smartly-dressed pickpocket preying on elderly Waitrose shopper... while protecting crook's identity by BLURRING face
The initial SNP breakthrough at the 1974 elections was concentrated in formerly strong Tory areas - particularly in NE Scotland - with a couple of gains from Labour in Dundee and Strirlingshire.In 1979 the SNP were reduced to just two seats - Western Isles and a Dundee seat - with the Tories regaining all the seats lost five years earlier.Tory voters who had switched to the SNP in 1974.returned home.The Tories suffered heavy losses in 1987 and were reduced to ten seats with their vote share sharply reduced.Labour appeared to pick up tactical votes from both SNP and the LibDems with the Tories losing support to both smaller parties. SNP representation thereafter was largely confined to Banff & Buchan, Angus and Moray until 1997. In both the 1987 and 2010 elections Labour polled circa 42%. The Tories dropped from 24% to 16.7% with the SNP moving from 14% to 20%. Overwhelmingly those voters will now have returned to the Tories with the SNP being more than compensated at Labour's expense. Edit - I was referring to the 2014 Independence Referendum.
So your argument is that Conservative voters were voting SNP in areas that were traditionally a Tory-vs-Liberal battle ground to send an Anti-Labour message?
It's a view I suppose.
The 2017 SCon vote surge is on the back of the Lib Dem vote evaporating in the North/North East seats.
So, May wasted an entire month and the absolute maximum she's managed to extract from the EU is an EUCO communique restating what the withdrawal agreement already says, and a letter from Tusk to Juncker restating what the withdrawal agreement already says.
Good to know they're taking her displacement activity seriously.
The most concerning thing about May's approach (worse than the systematic dishonesty, attempts to marginalise Parliament, subvert the constitution and all the other stuff that every government tries) is the failure to understand how the EU works. They will never waste political capital until the deal as it stands is definitively rejected. By delaying for a month all she has achieved is to reduce the time available to move through the remaining steps of the process, making it harder to get to a good result and increasing the chance of a chaotic outcome.
I wonder how many of the "stay in" camp are reconciled stay in-ers. Many, I would warrant. If so, then they would likely or possibly support the deal as they might appreciate that given where we are, it is a starting point.
For the Get completely out-ers, they are mistaking the WA for the final agreement. In theory they may get up in arms about the backstop but in the medium term they could easily have what they want. So illogical for them to dislike the WA so much.
For the whatevers, then surely they would want to avoid some of the chaos that most people, IDS and Mark Francois apart, are telling them would follow no deal?
No?
*IF* people are offered a choice through another vote then I maintain that the only way that choice has a chance of both getting through Parliament, and persuading the EU to boot the A50 deadline far enough into the future to hold it (if that's even possible,) is if it's Deal vs Remain. And then the Deal is toast.
I understand where you're coming from with regard to the Deal being a transitional arrangement, but in practice the backstop defeats that argument. What would be said widely during a referendum campaign, and likely believed, is that we'd end up stuck in limbo indefinitely because of the Northern Ireland border problem, that a future Government would probably end up subscribing to a permanent arrangement involving a customs union to resolve it, and that all-in-all if we don't intend to make a clean break then we might as well stay in.
I dare say that, for quite a lot of people, (a) keeping out of the EU's core political project, and (b) making Brexit go away will be enough to persuade them to sign up to the Deal, but I don't think there'll be a sufficient number of such voters available to win a majority in a binary plebiscite. The Deal will be viewed as a disappointment by many Leave backers: my guess is that some would conclude that they actively prefer being full participants in the EU to being half-in, half-out and therefore change sides, but most would stay at home.
Under Deal vs Remain, I think what would basically happen is that all the Remainers would turn out to play but a lot of the Brexiteers wouldn't. A win, and probably a comfortable win, for Remain.
I am going to risk my towering reputation on this forum by making a prediction.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Don't lose faith now!! Although the conclusion is likely as you suggest, we come back to offering us lot a "no deal" option.
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
In the unlikely event of a Deal/Remain plebiscite actually occurring I would actually expect Remain to win, on a significantly reduced turnout. Available evidence suggests that the Deal is widely disliked and, to the extent that a second referendum will provoke any enthusiasm, it'll be on the Remain side.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
It's extraordinary that, given their mistake upon mistake, and missed opportunity upon missed opportunity, the government have now come up with the least dreadful way of leaving and "the public" don't like it.
What the fuck do the public want?
Most of the population falls into three camps: Stay in, Get completely out, and Don't know/Don't care.
One can construct a good argument to the effect that the Deal represents something close to the "average" position of the population as a whole, but unfortunately for Theresa May the middle-of-the-road answer doesn't necessarily guarantee a position around which everyone can unite.
The deal is rather like asking one hundred people whether, offered the choice, they would prefer to wear navy or brown trousers - and then, based on the result being split down the middle, offering everyone a free pair of trousers with one leg navy and the other leg brown. You'll get a few takers for such eccentric apparel, but most people would decry them as hideous and chuck them straight in the bin.
Or perhaps, being asked - meat or fish? And then being served a cod and lamb hotpot.
With the vegans on the side, screaming "And what about ME??? You want me to STARVE???"
Comments
I am afraid to say that I have come to the conclusion that the only answer is a neo-communist in No.10. I suspect that such a result will force a drastic realignment of politics in a new direction because it would do Labour no favours and the Tories would be in meltdown for a variety of reasons and probably with an extremist as leader.
The system is broken. To fix it, we may need to break it further.
Blair had a chance in his first term, because his support was so strong he could have just quietly passed it without repercussions or serious opposition. It would have guaranteed government from the centre for the duration, but it was never a priority for him and I guess he succumbed to the conventional 'wisdom'.
Nah, if the Deal won vs Remain I would wash my socks.
The Conservative have lost support among upper middle class voters in England over the past 50 years, but gained support among working class voters to compensate. That has changed the profile of what a safe Conservative seat looks like, but not eroded their dominance in Southern England and the Midlands overall.
The biggest problem I see is that our relations with our largest trading partners would be in permafrost for the foreseeable. It is inconceivable that that would not have significant adverse consequences, in fact you can see the EU going out of their way to make sure there were. £39bn, nearly all of which we admit is due anyway, is a cheap price to avoid that.
And radical socialists are about 20% of the population, and under PR, there would be a party to represent them.
And the more intelligent and resourceful a person is, the easier it is to find a rationalisation for almost anything.
Some - @Charles looking at you - say simply fail to ratify the WA hence leave not with a formal "No Deal" (what that?) but without having made any preparations and see what comes. Oh and Charles, and others, think that the EU will of course give us a few side deals on bits and bobs, nothing too important, perhaps keep the planes in the sky, etc. Which of course constitutes a deal. Which is why 1) is a non-starter.
By the way, I agree with those saying that Corbyn could be in for a right shock if he did get his wish for a GE. There's no knowing how that wold pan out but my money would be on Tories Most Seats. He's had a very, very bad Brexit.
But I agree with your basic point.
Tone argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes, according to P. Dorey in a 2008 book entitled "The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism.", per Wikipedia.
After the Deal falls next week, Theresa May will announce that her plan B is to go to the people with it.
Referendum question: Should the Withdrawal Treaty be ratifed? YES/NO
The EU will extend for that, I would have thought.
And will it get through parliament? I don't see why not.
Then it wins, the Deal, and we leave the EU in June.
Personally, I try not to worry about such things anymore. To the extent that I continue to pay attention to what happens in the country it's (a) as a hobby/spectator sport, (b) in case any details from the news come in handy when I do the village pub quiz on one of my excursions to visit family in Norfolk, and (c) so that I can try to spot serious trouble coming, and do what little is possible to preserve some of my meagre wealth in the event of a generalised economic collapse. I can't influence what goes on in politics - neither through my (completely worthless) vote nor by any other means - so there's no point in worrying about it, any more than there is in worrying about the inevitability of one's own eventual death. Que será, será...
For reasons stated above and many times previously there can't be no deal offered which is what that is essentially asking. Not ratifying the WA means no deal and that ain't going to be a flyer for a referendum question.
If (IF) we have a referendum following an extension of A50 it will be Deal (ie Leave) vs Remain and I would have thought Leave would win it by 10pts (ie 55-45 minimum).
David Cameron was also highly critical of AV in particular. Allowing people into the UK parliament who did not finish first in their constituency was described by Dave as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either."
- David Cameron. "Why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
TSE are you reading this? Hello, TSE!
This also assumes that neither the DUP nor some members of the ERG-wing of her own party wouldn't make a successful attempt to pull the plug on the Government under such circumstances, which is far from a given.
Edit - I was referring to the 2014 Independence Referendum.
If the centre-Left were somehow to regain the ascendancy then they could try to change the rules to something more like the run-off system used by the Tories, in an attempt to put the Left back in its box. But I doubt they'll get the chance.
Mr. Rook, still phenomenal how idiotic the combination of Miliband's reforms were, and the PLP's failure to understand their own leadership rules.
If your broader contention is true, this would indeed be a new phenomenon, as it was always assumed that the majority is close to the centre, not the extremes.
But you're right that the deal/WA is the start of a process the end of which is uncertain too. Personally, I don't have a great problem with this. I think the electorate are capable of taking intangibles into account. But I am not so sure our political class agree, especially after they marked the last lot of homework.
A lot of voters who wanted a clean break with the EU are liable either to actively boycott such a vote as illegitimate, or just stay at home because they feel the whole process has proved that voting is pointless to begin with.
Lie down with dogs and you get fleas...
As to getting such a referendum through parliament, I can see a strong case, since if parliament were to block it, having failed to agree on any alternative way forward, it would risk looking very bad indeed.
What the fuck do the public want?
As for where the EU is going next, of course no option can ever bind the future, but the exact meaning of Revoke is as clear as anything ever can be.
And to troll political pollsters.
Conspiracy theorists and UKIPers must love this quote!
That said, the general duplicity and incompetence of the political class does serve as an additional reason to stay away.
A YES to ratify means we leave with the Deal.
A NO does not mean we leave with nothing in place. It puts us back to where we are now. Impasse not broken. Could lead to Remain. Could lead to leaving with the government and the EU using best efforts to minimize disruption. Or something else.
What she will essentially be saying (at the lecturn) is ...
"Parliament have rejected this deal but I - your Prime Minister - think it is the best available and a good one and we should sign it. Do you, the people, my people, agree with me?"
I can see that happening, and I think it would be not unreasonable.
Of beans.
So I definitely would, if that comes to pass, have lost the faith :-))
The deal could go down harder than AV did, which leaves us back where we are now but having burned up a load more time.
But no, no evidence that the government has a scintilla of competence.
I disagree about Corbyn as well: he was much more consequence than cause, and the reasons that propelled him to win in 2015 could equally propel a successor from the populist left to succeed him.
But at least May would have to resign.
One can construct a good argument to the effect that the Deal represents something close to the "average" position of the population as a whole, but unfortunately for Theresa May the middle-of-the-road answer doesn't necessarily guarantee a position around which everyone can unite.
The deal is rather like asking one hundred people whether, offered the choice, they would prefer to wear navy or brown trousers - and then, based on the result being split down the middle, offering everyone a free pair of trousers with one leg navy and the other leg brown. You'll get a few takers for such eccentric apparel, but most people would decry them as hideous and chuck them straight in the bin.
Of all the arguments people use for and against certain systems, one that has least traction with me is "such-and-such marginalises whatever-opinion, and this is a good thing."
In such circumstance, switching to a system which allows all stripes of opinion to be heard, even the unpleasant one, is not an issue. It's democracy.
If these radicals (all over the spectrum) can form a coherent coalition in Government - that's democracy in action. I may well vehemently dislike it, but tough. The "issue" (in my eyes) wouldn't be with the electoral system, but with the people voting. Tough luck on me, really.
All the referendum options are flawed in one way or another, which is why I hope and pray there is no resort to one, but this one IMO is the least flawed.
And I really do disagree with you on the result. I would give the Deal an excellent chance. I think the public has an appetite for resolution and having this one in the rear view mirror.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1083660719076401153
Management summary: stalemate.
For the Get completely out-ers, they are mistaking the WA for the final agreement. In theory they may get up in arms about the backstop but in the medium term they could easily have what they want. So illogical for them to dislike the WA so much.
For the whatevers, then surely they would want to avoid some of the chaos that most people, IDS and Mark Francois apart, are telling them would follow no deal?
No?
Good to know they're taking her displacement activity seriously.
My point was that FPTP used to work to marginalise such views, but now it does not.
But, yes, you might be right. It is easy to get swept up in all of this and assume erroneously that that applies to most other people too.
But if his job depends on not doing so, then it doesn't sound like a realistic prospect, and basing your strategy on such blind hope is foolish. Wasting a MONTH on it is inexcusable.
Anyway, enough of this trash talk, referendum go hang yourself, the Deal is going through.
Damn well is.
Worse, though, it can bottle things up until they become more radical than the otherwise would have done.
The EU-scepticism and potential Referendum Party/UKIP/similar vote was held down by FPTP for many years by "wasted vote-ism" and being denied representation against its (repressed) share.
It's been pointed out several times that a release of the pressure earlier (eg at Lisbon time, or even earlier), would probably have seen off a lot of the dislike and disquiet. Representing more views in Parliament to more fairly reflect the views outside of Parliament... well, maybe the time has come.
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
Just about the only worse referendum would be Deal v Remain, which, setting aside how it ever gets proposed in Parliament, would lead to a widespread boycott and disruption, and probably finishes with Remain winning on a <50% turnout, and UKIP polling >30% at the next election.
Police are slammed for showing CCTV of smartly-dressed pickpocket preying on elderly Waitrose shopper... while protecting crook's identity by BLURRING face
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6581511/Police-slammed-showing-CCTV-smartly-dressed-pickpocket-preying-elderly-Waitrose-shoppe.html
It's a view I suppose.
The 2017 SCon vote surge is on the back of the Lib Dem vote evaporating in the North/North East seats.
I understand where you're coming from with regard to the Deal being a transitional arrangement, but in practice the backstop defeats that argument. What would be said widely during a referendum campaign, and likely believed, is that we'd end up stuck in limbo indefinitely because of the Northern Ireland border problem, that a future Government would probably end up subscribing to a permanent arrangement involving a customs union to resolve it, and that all-in-all if we don't intend to make a clean break then we might as well stay in.
I dare say that, for quite a lot of people, (a) keeping out of the EU's core political project, and (b) making Brexit go away will be enough to persuade them to sign up to the Deal, but I don't think there'll be a sufficient number of such voters available to win a majority in a binary plebiscite. The Deal will be viewed as a disappointment by many Leave backers: my guess is that some would conclude that they actively prefer being full participants in the EU to being half-in, half-out and therefore change sides, but most would stay at home.
Under Deal vs Remain, I think what would basically happen is that all the Remainers would turn out to play but a lot of the Brexiteers wouldn't. A win, and probably a comfortable win, for Remain.
With the vegans on the side, screaming "And what about ME??? You want me to STARVE???"