> @glw said: > It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for. > > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
It's so much more complex than that trite response though. If you stop and think, you'll appreciate it.
The original vote was a very simplistic binary choice. No one knew what 'Leave' actually meant. The deal thrashed out by Theresa May and Olly Robbins certainly wasn't what anyone exactly envisaged and I think it's only right and proper that it is put back to the people in a confirmatory vote, along with other options including No Deal. By the same token, people should be given the chance to say if they think they'd rather kick the whole thing into touch.
This is all the more the case because the original vote was so narrow.
> I am just consistent and courteous, which seems to wind up people who change strategy all the time to satisfy their need to be seen winning arguments
Well you're certainly not courteous and I'm far from convinced you're honourable. Sorry to say so.
As for 'consistent' even if that were true, it's not a virtue, especially not when it comes to this Brexit. Steve Baker describes himself as 'consistent' and it is the kind of intransigence that has caused nothing but trouble.
When dealing with something as complex as Britain's exit from the EU a degree of flexibility and ability to listen to other points of view, adapt accordingly and allow your 'red lines' to shift is vitally important. It's called compromise and it was always going to be necessary. Alt-Right headbangers won't bring about the Brexit of their desire, I'm afraid.
I am one of the few posters on here that never resorts to name calling, or implying malicious intent on others, despite constant trolling. At least I try to talk about betting occasionally, and get my facts right.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @isam said: > UKIP didnt get anywhere near 38% > > I meant in the polls beforehand
You could have fooled me with your comment that "UKIP won last time with 38% ... that's an interesting benchmark."
YouGov had UKIP with between 24% and 27% in their polls conducted in the final week of the 2014 Euro elections. UKIP won 27.5% of the actual vote.
YouGov have just produced a poll with the Brexit Party on 34%. Leavers, if not some Remainers here, are capable of distinguishing between the Brexit Party and UKIP, which is why UKIP are down to 3% in the same poll.
> @glw said: > It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for. > > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
Nope. If people agree with you, they won’t vote to. Remain. Either way let the people decide in the light of the reality of Brexit.
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > > > > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > > > > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum > > > > > > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate. > > > > > > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers. > > > > > > I don’t think no deal is a good idea > > > > > > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system > > > > > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > > > > > > > > > > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA) > > > > It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for. > > You had that vote. You don’t get a do over.
If that vote had been binding, it would have been struck down by the courts, and we would absolutely be having a do-over.
Because it was not binding, it has not been struck down; but its non-binding nature means that of course we can (especially after so many years of discussion) have a do-over.
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
>
> But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
Nope. If people agree with you, they won’t vote to. Remain. Either way let the people decide in the light of the reality of Brexit.
You can spin it how you like, but you would argue for a second referendum even if Leave had been crystal clear what it entailed and the vote overwhelmingly in its favour.
I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
> @Streeter said: > Now lets look at what has happened. > > > > The referendum was won by Leave. > > > > Mrs May negotiated a soft Brexit with the EU. However a rebel bunch (fewer than a hundred). mostly Tories, voted against it because they wanted a harder Brexit. > > > > A much bigger bunch of MPs (well over three hundred) voted against it because they wanted to Remain. And that's why they brought in the HoC to make the final decision. > > > > In a final irony, one small group call themselves Democrats. > > > > Now being a Leave voter and having a small brain, have I got this wrong? > > Yes. Mrs May’s deal is a hard Brexit. Staying in the CU and SM à la Norway is a soft Brexit. > > There has been a shifting of this particular Overton window in the last two years. No Deal used to be unimaginable and beyond any definition of ‘hard Brexit’.
Norway is in the SM but not CU, Turkey in the CU but not SM
How could it be a crossover when this is the first time London has been polled, and the party you think is being crossed over has risen by more than the one you think is doing the crossing?!
I haven't the time to post them at the moment as I'm working but it's worth folks taking a quick look at the latest ComRes regional breakdowns. The sample sizes are really small, but they do tally with this latest YouGov. Lib Dems are make big inroads in London and the South-East and Scotland. In the South-west it's a straight fight between BP and LibDems with the former currently ahead.
As with the vote three years ago, it will be fascinating to see what happens to the Labour 'working class' vote in East Anglia, the Midlands and North-east.
So interesting ... I think next week may produce some really unexpected results and not how Farage's phalanx believes.
> @Jonathan said: > > @Charles said: > > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum > > > > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate. > > > > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers. > > > > I don’t think no deal is a good idea > > > > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system > > > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > > > > > > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA) > > It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
> @glw said: > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
> > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010?
>
> >
>
> > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one.
>
> >
>
> > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd.
>
> >
>
> > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
>
>
>
> The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
>
> And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line.
>
> At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge.
>
> If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ?
> @TOPPING said: > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time. > > > It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people.
We ask the same people the same question every five years.
One way for Farage to fail to come top by a clear margin, IMHO, is to let his ego get the better of him. There are hints of this today with him saying he may refuse to do further BBC interviews.
Right now, he’s polling above par because TBP has become a repository for anyone pissed off about the failure to Leave. Farage’s extensive and colourful history is very much secondary to that. Some TBP voters are turning a blind eye or holding their noses.
If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
> I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal.
> @mwadams said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > Lab -19 > > Con -10 > > LD +13 > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > Green +6 > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times,
Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target :
General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green Party Candidate Votes % ± Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5 Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
> @mwadams said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > Lab -19 > > Con -10 > > LD +13 > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > Green +6 > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too)
> But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
>
>
> It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people.
We ask the same people the same question every five years.
"We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years."
I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > I earlier said: > > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP. > > Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ?
I think it is working in Scotland to the extent that the SNP cannot escape blame for their failings by having a junior coalition partner to do that for them. I also think in general it's better to have these negotiations/debates more in the open than hidden in the Quad as happened with the Coalition.
Whether it would have been better for the country and parties involved depends to a great extent on the choices the individuals concerned made.
Because it was not binding, it has not been struck down; but its non-binding nature means that of course we can (especially after so many years of discussion) have a do-over.
More pragmatically, if there is a second referendum and it doesn't include an option to Remain, there will be actual riots, involving throwing things through windows and setting fire to things and all that. Oh yeah, and Scotland seceding.
I'm sure the "but muh democracy" brigade would think this is terrific in the moral superiority stakes. But I'm equally sure that no Government would countenance it, because even someone with as little empathy as Theresa May can see that it is generally better to avoid situations where people want to set fire to things then throw them through windows.
> @Jonathan said: > > @glw said: > > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration. > > Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change. > > In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
We were told that a Leave vote would lead to an immediate and certain year long recession:
> @Pulpstar said: > > @mwadams said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > > > Lab -19 > > > Con -10 > > > LD +13 > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > > Green +6 > > > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it? > > Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times, > > Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target : > > General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green > Party Candidate Votes % ± > Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5 > Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
When looking at how plausible a target seat is what is the relative importance between the size of the majority vs has it recently been won by the target party? That it was won by LD in 2005 and 2010 seems why they might win it rather than being close in 2017, which is likely to be completely different to the next GE, at least if held before Brexit happens.
> @glw said: > > @TOPPING said: > > > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time. > > > > > > > > > It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people. > > > > We ask the same people the same question every five years. > > "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years." > > I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
-- More like, we want to ask you for confirmation because after three years we have have discovered there is no way to deliver Leave without risks of serious economic and political harm. The viable directions are a) WTO, b) Deal or c) Remain. Please confirm which you want.
"We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years."
I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
Turns out it was an impossible instruction. The good news is that democracy is intact because all the people have to do at the next general election is to vote in The Brexit Party and out we go!
> > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
>
> Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ?
I think it is working in Scotland to the extent that the SNP cannot escape blame for their failings by having a junior coalition partner to do that for them. I also think in general it's better to have these negotiations/debates more in the open than hidden in the Quad as happened with the Coalition.
Whether it would have been better for the country and parties involved depends to a great extent on the choices the individuals concerned made.
And that's fair enough. So another question: my memories of the details of the politics back then are slightly fuzzy (it's not as if much has happened since), so was this considered and, if so, why was it rejected?
I'd also add that the Lib Dems were always about PR, and PR frequently involves coalitions.
> @Casino_Royale said: > One way for Farage to fail to come top by a clear margin, IMHO, is to let his ego get the better of him. There are hints of this today with him saying he may refuse to do further BBC interviews. > > Right now, he’s polling above par because TBP has become a repository for anyone pissed off about the failure to Leave. Farage’s extensive and colourful history is very much secondary to that. Some TBP voters are turning a blind eye or holding their noses. > > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like: > > TBP - 26% > Cons - 13% > UKIP - 3% > CHUK - 2% > Lab - 19% > LDs - 21% > Greens - 8% > Others - 8%
TBP + UKIP + Cons = 42% is I think too low. No lower than 48% in my view.
> @Mysticrose said: > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this. > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives. > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
Deal exit vs No Deal exit Deal exit vs Remain Deal exit vs present situation
> @HYUFD said: > > @mwadams said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > > > Lab -19 > > > Con -10 > > > LD +13 > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > > Green +6 > > > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it? > > Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too)
It's broadly neutral in terms of net gains/losses, and reflects the demographics, I guess. It could be worse for them if there is LD/Lab tactical voting, but I think that may be a "a thing of the past".
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @Pulpstar said: > > > @mwadams said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > > > > > Lab -19 > > > > Con -10 > > > > LD +13 > > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > > > Green +6 > > > > > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > > > > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it? > > > > Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times, > > > > Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target : > > > > General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green > > Party Candidate Votes % ± > > Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5 > > Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7 > > When looking at how plausible a target seat is what is the relative importance between the size of the majority vs has it recently been won by the target party? That it was won by LD in 2005 and 2010 seems why they might win it rather than being close in 2017, which is likely to be completely different to the next GE, at least if held before Brexit happens.
> I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal.
On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you.
We have demonstrably proven that Brexit cannot be delivered otherwise where's your Brexit?
Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA.
And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve.
Given France has fought more wars against England than any other country and is our oldest enemy (much as I love France) and Scotland has fought the second most wars of any country against England and from the Middle Ages through Mary Queen of Scots to the Jacobite rebellion France has supported Scots against the English it is no surprise Scottish nationalists want to revive that trend and get France's help to break up the Union
Turns out it was an impossible instruction. The good news is that democracy is intact because all the people have to do at the next general election is to vote in The Brexit Party and out we go!
An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
> @another_richard said: > > @Mysticrose said: > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this. > > > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives. > > > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks. > > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ? > > Deal exit vs No Deal exit > Deal exit vs Remain > Deal exit vs present situation
Deal exit vs 12 month extension, change of leadership and GE.
> @mwadams said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @mwadams said: > > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > > 'That there London' 2017 result > > > > > > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others > > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% > > > > > > > > Lab -19 > > > > Con -10 > > > > LD +13 > > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP) > > > > Green +6 > > > > > > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5% > > > > > > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate > > > > > > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16% > > > > > > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam > > > > > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it? > > > > Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too) > > It's broadly neutral in terms of net gains/losses, and reflects the demographics, I guess. It could be worse for them if there is LD/Lab tactical voting, but I think that may be a "a thing of the past".
Lab LD tactical voting more likely than LD Lab at the moment
> @TOPPING said: > > @glw said: > > > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration. > > > > Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change. > > > > In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information. > > We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal. > > On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you. > > We have demonstrably proven that Brexit cannot be delivered otherwise where's your Brexit? > > Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA. > > And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve.
No, all we have proven is that MPs don't want to deliver Brexit. All it takes is them walking through the Aye lobby.
> @another_richard said: > > @Mysticrose said: > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this. > > > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives. > > > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks. > > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ? > > Deal exit vs No Deal exit > Deal exit vs Remain > Deal exit vs present situation
3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it.
If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it.
If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
> @isam said: > Leave Tories to target for Nige : > > > > Afriyie Baker Baron Bone Braverman Bridgen Cash Chope Duddridge Francois Fysh Hollobone Holloway Jayawardena Jenkin Jenkyns Jones Lewis Lopez Mackinlay Morris Patel Paterson Redwood Robertson Rosindell Rowley Villiers > > > > All those that voted down the WA twice. > > > > & Drax. Maybe even a few more who voted it very grudgingly. > > The best of all would be Michael Portillo
Next time it will be “were you up for Duncan Smith?”
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @Mysticrose said: > > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this. > > > > > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives. > > > > > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks. > > > > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ? > > > > Deal exit vs No Deal exit > > Deal exit vs Remain > > Deal exit vs present situation > > 3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it. > > If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it. > > If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
How does no deal settle it? What happens in practice? Which block of MPs are expected to deliver it? Without a majority, or even a quarter of MPs supporting, how will they get anything done? Are they allowed to pay the EU for access to a free trade deal? What are the limitations on agreements they can make with the EU? Do those limitations apply to EEA? France?
Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only.
I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON. I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends. Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016.
If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation. If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation. Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation.
I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched.
Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE.
And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
> @TOPPING said: > "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years." > > I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results. > > Turns out it was an impossible instruction. The good news is that democracy is intact because all the people have to do at the next general election is to vote in The Brexit Party and out we go!
I think that is a good solution. A one issue party will have to make the case that to get the no deal Brexit that they claim so many people are enthusiastic about they will need to form a government, while simultaneously reassuring us that they are not a bunch of fascists, fruitcakes and gullible loons. That's democracy innit? Well democracy after a fashion. (Usual caveats apply. This offer does not include reform of the House of Lords, the Monarchy, FPTP, asymmetric devolution, or unitary authority local government/status quo)
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @Mysticrose said: > > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this. > > > > > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives. > > > > > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks. > > > > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ? > > > > Deal exit vs No Deal exit > > Deal exit vs Remain > > Deal exit vs present situation > > 3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it. > > If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it. > > If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
Wasted typing. Either there wont be a referendum, or it’ll be between some kind of deal exit and the status quo of staying in. We all know that already.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > > I earlier said: > > > > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP. > > > > > > Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ? > > > > I think it is working in Scotland to the extent that the SNP cannot escape blame for their failings by having a junior coalition partner to do that for them. I also think in general it's better to have these negotiations/debates more in the open than hidden in the Quad as happened with the Coalition. > > > > Whether it would have been better for the country and parties involved depends to a great extent on the choices the individuals concerned made. > > And that's fair enough. So another question: my memories of the details of the politics back then are slightly fuzzy (it's not as if much has happened since), so was this considered and, if so, why was it rejected? > > I'd also add that the Lib Dems were always about PR, and PR frequently involves coalitions.
I know there were books written about the Coalition negotiations, but I haven't read them, so I don't know.
There is PR, and then there is PR, as we can see with our implementation of D'Hondt. Similarly there are coalitions and then there are coalitions - see for example the current FG and FF arrangement in Ireland.
What you can say is that if you have a more PR system than FPTP then the power balance in the negotiations is different. In 2010 this balance was more than 5:1 in the Tories favour in terms of seats, but much closer to 3:2 in terms of votes. Something like the latter would have created a very different coalition.
> @glw said: > > @TOPPING said: > > > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time. > > > > > > > > > It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people. > > > > We ask the same people the same question every five years. > > "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years." > > I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
Problem is, the 52% are now 46% and none of the specific Brexit outcomes has a majority for Acceptable or better, including cancelling the whole thing. How do you interpret that instruction?
> @Casino_Royale said: > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like: > > TBP - 26% > Cons - 13% > UKIP - 3% > CHUK - 2% > Lab - 19% > LDs - 21% > Greens - 8% > Others - 8%
> @RobD said: > > @TOPPING said: > > > @glw said: > > > > > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration. > > > > > > > > Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change. > > > > > > > > In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information. > > > > We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal. > > > > On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you. > > > > We have demonstrably proven that Brexit cannot be delivered otherwise where's your Brexit? > > > > Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA. > > > > And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve. > > No, all we have proven is that MPs don't want to deliver Brexit. All it takes is them walking through the Aye lobby.
Some MPs are not as stupid as previously thought. Most appear to think that their constitutional responsibility disallows them for enacting legislation that causes harm to their constituents, even if 52% of the general population were conned into voting for it. "So doctor, as I am paying you as I am a private patient, I instruct you to remove my otherwise healthy testes, as I would like to take back control of my urges." "Hmm", thinks Dr Makemoney "I'll introduce some delay, and if I suggest that the operation involves a rusty razor blade and Dr Mark-Mad-As-A-Fish-Francois he might just realise the pain ain't worth the gain" Time is rarely of the essence when it comes to carrying through a stupid decision.
> @kinabalu said: > Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only. > > I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON. > I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends. > Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016. > > If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation. > If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation. > Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation. > > I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched. > > Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
Its not an uninteresting exercise but the result has to be approached with caution. The turnout in the referendum was 72.2%. I will be surprised if the turnout in the Euro elections is half of that. The results will be strongly influenced by which half votes.
> @kinabalu said: > Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only. > > I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON. > I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends. > Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016. > > If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation. > If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation. > Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation. > > I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched. > > Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
1/2 Con is already looking like an overestimate. The residual Con voters will surely be majority Remain, as one poll subsample has already indicated.
> @kinabalu said: > Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only. > > I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON. > I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends. > Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016. > > If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation. > If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation. > Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation. > > I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched. > > Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
26th May. Results not announced until late Sunday night, so as not to affect results in other EU countries (I know, hard to imagine that other countries are voting too!)
> @williamglenn said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like: > > > > TBP - 26% > > Cons - 13% > > UKIP - 3% > > CHUK - 2% > > Lab - 19% > > LDs - 21% > > Greens - 8% > > Others - 8% > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% >
O/T but right now more than 25% of our total energy needs are being met by solar energy. I know its a nice day and all but wow. I never thought I would see that in the UK.
Its a long time since we had a windy day btw. Under 5% again which is a pretty poor return for a massive capital investment.
> @IanB2 said: > > Wasted typing. Either there wont be a referendum, or it’ll be between some kind of deal exit and the status quo of staying in. We all know that already.
Ref2 in 2019 now a 25% chance on Betfair. This is still a lay, IMO, although I am not doing any more of it.
25% sounds about right for the chances of another Ref but in 2019 is a stretch. Every chance that, if it happens, it will not take place until 2020.
> @TOPPING said: > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis. > > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs. > > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE. > > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties. > > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region?
Farage and Portillo had a very friendly Brexit chat on LBC recently, if he could somehow be persuaded to come aboard, now that This Week is ending, that would be Ab Fab
F1: probably be a little while before the markets are up (they weren't this morning) but Verstappen, Leclerc, Perez, and Sainz are probably the chaps I'll be looking at for Monaco. Maybe Ricciardo.
She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region?
Farage and Portillo had a very friendly Brexit chat on LBC recently, if he could somehow be persuaded to come aboard, now that This Week is ending, that would be Ab Fab
Would he want to? It’d be very polarising, and it seems the public have gotten over his previous stint in government.
No, all we have proven is that MPs don't want to deliver Brexit. All it takes is them walking through the Aye lobby.
Yes it's curious. You would have thought that the likes of Baker, Rees-Mogg, Francois et al actually did want Brexit but apparently not.
It is well established that they are idiots.
Agree. But/and we all knew this and our votes should have included this in our scenario analysis. That is why it is strange that the likes of Michael Gove and our very own @Casino_Royale and perhaps you also are so surprised at our current predicament.
Surely Dave going, someone like if not actually TMay taking over and the very events that have transpired transpiring would have been assigned a non-trivial if not significant probability.
> @DavidL said: > O/T but right now more than 25% of our total energy needs are being met by solar energy. I know its a nice day and all but wow. I never thought I would see that in the UK. > > Its a long time since we had a windy day btw. Under 5% again which is a pretty poor return for a massive capital investment.
When you look at the averages over a long time period (or modelled from a longer time period of wind observations) then this is what you would expect. More solar power in summer and more wind power in winter, with the two complementing each other.
> 26th May. Results not announced until late Sunday night, so as not to affect results in other EU countries (I know, hard to imagine that other countries are voting too!)
Got it. Thanks. Guess I can hold out for an extra 48 hours. Deep breathing, yoga, long walks ... few dozen Stellas.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @TOPPING said: > > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis. > > > > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs. > > > > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE. > > > > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties. > > > > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation. > > What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @TOPPING said: > > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis. > > > > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs. > > > > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE. > > > > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties. > > > > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation. > > What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
Because they knew that when the public had had some of it - revealing both the damage and the hollowness of the cheery promises they had been made - the chances of them wanting more would be slim and the chances of wanting to go back would start to grow. Hence they are desperate to get beyond the point of no return in one bound, before their big con is exposed.
> @RobD said: > https://twitter.com/paulembery/status/1127916788581322753 > > > > She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region? > > Farage and Portillo had a very friendly Brexit chat on LBC recently, if he could somehow be persuaded to come aboard, now that This Week is ending, that would be Ab Fab > > Would he want to? It’d be very polarising, and it seems the public have gotten over his previous stint in government.
His most memorable moment was his defenestration, with his cringing SAS speech coming a close second. Still more of a heavyweight than all the contenders at the moment or the LOTO
The Brexit Party campaigns on saving democracy, and doing a good job of it, while undermining the very democracy they profess to love. Farage and his ilk are dangerous in a way that other politicians aren't by devaluing politics. Politicians who trash politics. Corbyn, Duncan Smith and politicians in between, campaign on policies and who is better at implementing them.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like: > > > > TBP - 26% > > Cons - 13% > > UKIP - 3% > > CHUK - 2% > > Lab - 19% > > LDs - 21% > > Greens - 8% > > Others - 8% > > What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13% >
It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
> The ban hammer will surely come thundering down.
>
> Just ask Stuart Dickson.
Stuart has made a couple of fleeting appearances recently, so any ban has presumably been rescinded.
Mike must be mellowing. There was a time when – cough – even the mere mention of, let's say, non-scientific Caledonian cross-sections was cause for a long sojourn in the cooler.
> 1/2 Con is already looking like an overestimate. The residual Con voters will surely be majority Remain, as one poll subsample has already indicated.
Noted and agreed - but I do want to lean the model in favour of Leave because Leave is the peg in the sand from the actual Ref. I will not feel comfortable declaring that we now want to Remain unless it looks compelling.
> She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region?
>
> Farage and Portillo had a very friendly Brexit chat on LBC recently, if he could somehow be persuaded to come aboard, now that This Week is ending, that would be Ab Fab
>
> Would he want to? It’d be very polarising, and it seems the public have gotten over his previous stint in government.
His most memorable moment was his defenestration, with his cringing SAS speech coming a close second. Still more of a heavyweight than all the contenders at the moment or the LOTO
He is a big Brexiteer with a keen mind. I’d hope his sense of democracy and desire to flex his intellectual muscles would be enough to tempt him.
> @DavidL said: > > Its not an uninteresting exercise but the result has to be approached with caution. The turnout in the referendum was 72.2%. I will be surprised if the turnout in the Euro elections is half of that. The results will be strongly influenced by which half votes.
Yes, absolutely, turnout is highly relevant. I think that a higher proportion of 2016 Remainers will vote than 2016 Leavers.
This is part of the reason for the 5% contingency uplift for Leave which I plan to apply.
> @FF43 said: > The Brexit Party campaigns on saving democracy, and doing a good job of it, while undermining the very democracy they profess to love. Farage and his ilk are dangerous in a way that other politicians aren't by devaluing politics. Politicians who trash politics. Corbyn, Duncan Smith and politicians in between, campaign on policies and who is better at implementing them.
Indeed. They similarly claim to love their country whilst undermining and embarrassing the country they profess to love. I am also not convinced El Duce Farage is really a lover of democracy, he simply believes that stating such an affinity advances his egocentric cause. It must not be forgotten that he is an admirer of that great upholder of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Putin.
Comments
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
>
> But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
It's so much more complex than that trite response though. If you stop and think, you'll appreciate it.
The original vote was a very simplistic binary choice. No one knew what 'Leave' actually meant. The deal thrashed out by Theresa May and Olly Robbins certainly wasn't what anyone exactly envisaged and I think it's only right and proper that it is put back to the people in a confirmatory vote, along with other options including No Deal. By the same token, people should be given the chance to say if they think they'd rather kick the whole thing into touch.
This is all the more the case because the original vote was so narrow.
> > @isam said:
> UKIP didnt get anywhere near 38%
>
> I meant in the polls beforehand
You could have fooled me with your comment that "UKIP won last time with 38% ... that's an interesting benchmark."
YouGov had UKIP with between 24% and 27% in their polls conducted in the final week of the 2014 Euro elections. UKIP won 27.5% of the actual vote.
YouGov have just produced a poll with the Brexit Party on 34%. Leavers, if not some Remainers here, are capable of distinguishing between the Brexit Party and UKIP, which is why UKIP are down to 3% in the same poll.
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
>
> But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
Nope. If people agree with you, they won’t vote to. Remain. Either way let the people decide in the light of the reality of Brexit.
> > @Charles said:
>
> > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> >
>
> > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> >
>
> > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
>
> >
>
> > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
>
> >
>
> > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
>
> >
>
> > I don’t think no deal is a good idea
>
> >
>
> > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
>
> >
>
> > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
>
>
>
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
>
> You had that vote. You don’t get a do over.
If that vote had been binding, it would have been struck down by the courts, and we would absolutely be having a do-over.
Because it was not binding, it has not been struck down; but its non-binding nature means that of course we can (especially after so many years of discussion) have a do-over.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127897245330833410?s=20
EDIT it seems they got 17%
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/26/european-elections-2014-results-breakdown
> https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127894816950509569?s=20
>
> https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127897245330833410?s=20
I suppose there is zero chance of regional polling for the rest of England, since only one region is important.
> https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127894816950509569?s=20
>
Nearly a LibDem Brexit crossover
@ElectionMapsUK
28m28 minutes ago
More
Westminster Voting Intention [London]:
LAB: 35% (-14)
CON: 23% (-10)
LDM: 21% (+10)
BXP: 10% (+10)
GRN: 7% (+4)
Via @YouGov, 7-10 May.
EU Changes w/ 2014.
WM Changes w/ Dec 2018.
Brexit Party trailing LibDems by 11% ...
I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
> Now lets look at what has happened.
>
>
>
> The referendum was won by Leave.
>
>
>
> Mrs May negotiated a soft Brexit with the EU. However a rebel bunch (fewer than a hundred). mostly Tories, voted against it because they wanted a harder Brexit.
>
>
>
> A much bigger bunch of MPs (well over three hundred) voted against it because they wanted to Remain. And that's why they brought in the HoC to make the final decision.
>
>
>
> In a final irony, one small group call themselves Democrats.
>
>
>
> Now being a Leave voter and having a small brain, have I got this wrong?
>
> Yes. Mrs May’s deal is a hard Brexit. Staying in the CU and SM à la Norway is a soft Brexit.
>
> There has been a shifting of this particular Overton window in the last two years. No Deal used to be unimaginable and beyond any definition of ‘hard Brexit’.
Norway is in the SM but not CU, Turkey in the CU but not SM
As with the vote three years ago, it will be fascinating to see what happens to the Labour 'working class' vote in East Anglia, the Midlands and North-east.
So interesting ... I think next week may produce some really unexpected results and not how Farage's phalanx believes.
Anyway, gtg.
> > @Charles said:
> > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
> >
> > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
> >
> > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
> >
> > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
> >
> > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
> >
> > I don’t think no deal is a good idea
> >
> > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
> >
> > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
> >
> >
> >
> > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
>
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
To coin a term loved by the Lib Dems - bollocks
calling edmund burke. your country needs you.
> I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
> But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
>
>
> It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people.
We ask the same people the same question every five years.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127894816950509569?s=20
> >
> > https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127897245330833410?s=20
>
> I suppose there is zero chance of regional polling for the rest of England, since only one region is important.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/y6sb0oystc/TheTimes_190509_VI_w.pdf
I have not checked if it is the exact same poll but there are regional figures in here. Mr Robinson on a big fat zero.
Right now, he’s polling above par because TBP has become a repository for anyone pissed off about the failure to Leave. Farage’s extensive and colourful history is very much secondary to that. Some TBP voters are turning a blind eye or holding their noses.
If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
TBP - 26%
Cons - 13%
UKIP - 3%
CHUK - 2%
Lab - 19%
LDs - 21%
Greens - 8%
Others - 8%
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > LOL! Brexit Party is in Yvette's back yard today.
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1127877409473085440
>
> Woo-hoo. Let's spend a load more time raging while espousing no policies
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1127906470924890113?s=20
Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
% vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
Lab -19
Con -10
LD +13
Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
Green +6
Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> 'That there London' 2017 result
>
> Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
>
> Lab -19
> Con -10
> LD +13
> Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> Green +6
>
> Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
>
> Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
>
> Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
>
> Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you.
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > 'That there London' 2017 result
> >
> > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> >
> > Lab -19
> > Con -10
> > LD +13
> > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > Green +6
> >
> > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> >
> > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> >
> > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> >
> > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
>
> That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times,
Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target :
General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5
Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > 'That there London' 2017 result
> >
> > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> >
> > Lab -19
> > Con -10
> > LD +13
> > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > Green +6
> >
> > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> >
> > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> >
> > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> >
> > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
>
> That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too)
I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
> > I earlier said:
> > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
>
> Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ?
I think it is working in Scotland to the extent that the SNP cannot escape blame for their failings by having a junior coalition partner to do that for them. I also think in general it's better to have these negotiations/debates more in the open than hidden in the Quad as happened with the Coalition.
Whether it would have been better for the country and parties involved depends to a great extent on the choices the individuals concerned made.
I'm sure the "but muh democracy" brigade would think this is terrific in the moral superiority stakes. But I'm equally sure that no Government would countenance it, because even someone with as little empathy as Theresa May can see that it is generally better to avoid situations where people want to set fire to things then throw them through windows.
> > @glw said:
> > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
>
> Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
>
> In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
We were told that a Leave vote would lead to an immediate and certain year long recession:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
Therefore your assertion is not true.
> > @mwadams said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > 'That there London' 2017 result
> > >
> > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> > >
> > > Lab -19
> > > Con -10
> > > LD +13
> > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > > Green +6
> > >
> > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> > >
> > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> > >
> > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> > >
> > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> >
> > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
>
> Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times,
>
> Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target :
>
> General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green
> Party Candidate Votes % ±
> Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5
> Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
When looking at how plausible a target seat is what is the relative importance between the size of the majority vs has it recently been won by the target party? That it was won by LD in 2005 and 2010 seems why they might win it rather than being close in 2017, which is likely to be completely different to the next GE, at least if held before Brexit happens.
> > @TOPPING said:
>
> > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people.
>
>
>
> We ask the same people the same question every five years.
>
> "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years."
>
> I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
--
More like, we want to ask you for confirmation because after three years we have have discovered there is no way to deliver Leave without risks of serious economic and political harm. The viable directions are a) WTO, b) Deal or c) Remain. Please confirm which you want.
I'd also add that the Lib Dems were always about PR, and PR frequently involves coalitions.
> One way for Farage to fail to come top by a clear margin, IMHO, is to let his ego get the better of him. There are hints of this today with him saying he may refuse to do further BBC interviews.
>
> Right now, he’s polling above par because TBP has become a repository for anyone pissed off about the failure to Leave. Farage’s extensive and colourful history is very much secondary to that. Some TBP voters are turning a blind eye or holding their noses.
>
> If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
>
> TBP - 26%
> Cons - 13%
> UKIP - 3%
> CHUK - 2%
> Lab - 19%
> LDs - 21%
> Greens - 8%
> Others - 8%
TBP + UKIP + Cons = 42% is I think too low. No lower than 48% in my view.
> What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
>
> All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
>
> For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
Deal exit vs No Deal exit
Deal exit vs Remain
Deal exit vs present situation
> > @mwadams said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > 'That there London' 2017 result
> > >
> > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> > >
> > > Lab -19
> > > Con -10
> > > LD +13
> > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > > Green +6
> > >
> > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> > >
> > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> > >
> > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> > >
> > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> >
> > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too)
It's broadly neutral in terms of net gains/losses, and reflects the demographics, I guess. It could be worse for them if there is LD/Lab tactical voting, but I think that may be a "a thing of the past".
> > @Pulpstar said:
> > > @mwadams said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > 'That there London' 2017 result
> > > >
> > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> > > >
> > > > Lab -19
> > > > Con -10
> > > > LD +13
> > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > > > Green +6
> > > >
> > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> > > >
> > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> > > >
> > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> > > >
> > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> > >
> > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
> >
> > Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times,
> >
> > Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target :
> >
> > General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green
> > Party Candidate Votes % ±
> > Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5
> > Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
>
> When looking at how plausible a target seat is what is the relative importance between the size of the majority vs has it recently been won by the target party? That it was won by LD in 2005 and 2010 seems why they might win it rather than being close in 2017, which is likely to be completely different to the next GE, at least if held before Brexit happens.
I'll have to check !
Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA.
And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve.
> https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1127904849486581762
>
>
>
> SNPers living in the ancient past.
Though the article is from a French MP.
Given France has fought more wars against England than any other country and is our oldest enemy (much as I love France) and Scotland has fought the second most wars of any country against England and from the Middle Ages through Mary Queen of Scots to the Jacobite rebellion France has supported Scots against the English it is no surprise Scottish nationalists want to revive that trend and get France's help to break up the Union
> > @mwadams said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > 'That there London' 2017 result
> > >
> > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> > >
> > > Lab -19
> > > Con -10
> > > LD +13
> > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > > Green +6
> > >
> > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> > >
> > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> > >
> > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> > >
> > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> >
> > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
>
> Labour have some amazing majority cushions in London to fall back on in hard times,
>
> Here's an 'obvious' Lib Dem target :
>
> General Election 2017: Hornsey and Wood Green
> Party Candidate Votes % ±
> Labour Catherine West 40,738 65.4 +14.5
> Liberal Democrat Dawn Barnes 10,000 16.0 -15.7
The LibDems would likely have bigger increases the further they are from wining and end up with few gains.
The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
> > @Mysticrose said:
> > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
> >
> > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
> >
> > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
>
> And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
>
> Deal exit vs No Deal exit
> Deal exit vs Remain
> Deal exit vs present situation
Deal exit vs 12 month extension, change of leadership and GE.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @mwadams said:
> > > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > > 'That there London' 2017 result
> > > >
> > > > Party Lab Con LD Green UKIP Others
> > > > % vote 54.5% 33.1% 8.8% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5%
> > > >
> > > > Lab -19
> > > > Con -10
> > > > LD +13
> > > > Brexit +9 (From UKIP)
> > > > Green +6
> > > >
> > > > Lab -> Con swing 4.5%
> > > >
> > > > Tory gains: Kensington, Battersea, possibly Enfield Southgate
> > > >
> > > > Con -> Lib Dem swing 11.5%; Lab -> Lib Dem swing 16%
> > > >
> > > > Lib Dem gains : Richmond Park, Bermondsey, Sutton & Cheam
> > >
> > > That looks surprisingly plausible, doesn't it?
> >
> > Yes, it looks like the Tories could ironically gain seats from Labour in Remainer London while losing seats to Labour in the rest of the country and Brexitshire and to the SNP in Scotland if there was a general election soon (albeit in London the LDs would gain some Tory seats too)
>
> It's broadly neutral in terms of net gains/losses, and reflects the demographics, I guess. It could be worse for them if there is LD/Lab tactical voting, but I think that may be a "a thing of the past".
Lab LD tactical voting more likely than LD Lab at the moment
> > @SandyRentool said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127894816950509569?s=20
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1127897245330833410?s=20
> >
> > I suppose there is zero chance of regional polling for the rest of England, since only one region is important.
>
> https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/y6sb0oystc/TheTimes_190509_VI_w.pdf
>
> I have not checked if it is the exact same poll but there are regional figures in here. Mr Robinson on a big fat zero.
Sub-samples not by electoral region. So not regional polling. And not much use.
Edit: But thanks for the link!
> > @glw said:
>
> > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
>
>
>
> Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
>
>
>
> In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
>
> We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal.
>
> On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you.
>
> We have demonstrably proven that Brexit cannot be delivered otherwise where's your Brexit?
>
> Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA.
>
> And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve.
No, all we have proven is that MPs don't want to deliver Brexit. All it takes is them walking through the Aye lobby.
> > @Mysticrose said:
> > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
> >
> > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
> >
> > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
>
> And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
>
> Deal exit vs No Deal exit
> Deal exit vs Remain
> Deal exit vs present situation
3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it.
If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it.
If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
> Leave Tories to target for Nige :
>
>
>
> Afriyie Baker Baron Bone Braverman Bridgen Cash Chope Duddridge Francois Fysh Hollobone Holloway Jayawardena Jenkin Jenkyns Jones Lewis Lopez Mackinlay Morris Patel Paterson Redwood Robertson Rosindell Rowley Villiers
>
>
>
> All those that voted down the WA twice.
>
>
>
> & Drax. Maybe even a few more who voted it very grudgingly.
>
> The best of all would be Michael Portillo
Next time it will be “were you up for Duncan Smith?”
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Mysticrose said:
> > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
> > >
> > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
> > >
> > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
> >
> > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
> >
> > Deal exit vs No Deal exit
> > Deal exit vs Remain
> > Deal exit vs present situation
>
> 3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it.
>
> If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it.
>
> If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
How does no deal settle it? What happens in practice? Which block of MPs are expected to deliver it? Without a majority, or even a quarter of MPs supporting, how will they get anything done? Are they allowed to pay the EU for access to a free trade deal? What are the limitations on agreements they can make with the EU? Do those limitations apply to EEA? France?
It does not settle anything, just creates chaos.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/BrexitNewYorker/status/1127662759393542144
>
> Presumably the preferred rhyming slang in the Baker household is Thatcher Tank.
I thought this was for real!
I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON.
I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends.
Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016.
If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation.
If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation.
Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation.
I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched.
Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
> "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years."
>
> I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
>
> Turns out it was an impossible instruction. The good news is that democracy is intact because all the people have to do at the next general election is to vote in The Brexit Party and out we go!
I think that is a good solution. A one issue party will have to make the case that to get the no deal Brexit that they claim so many people are enthusiastic about they will need to form a government, while simultaneously reassuring us that they are not a bunch of fascists, fruitcakes and gullible loons. That's democracy innit? Well democracy after a fashion. (Usual caveats apply. This offer does not include reform of the House of Lords, the Monarchy, FPTP, asymmetric devolution, or unitary authority local government/status quo)
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Mysticrose said:
> > > What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
> > >
> > > All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
> > >
> > > For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
> >
> > And what does a People's Vote on her deal actually mean ?
> >
> > Deal exit vs No Deal exit
> > Deal exit vs Remain
> > Deal exit vs present situation
>
> 3 questions. 1st Leave v Remain. If Remain wins that settles it.
>
> If Leave wins then a second questions answers are counted on Leave with Deal or No Deal. If No Deal wins that settles it.
>
> If Deal wins then a third questions answers are counted, Leave with May's Deal as is or add staying in the single market and/or Customs Union on top
Wasted typing. Either there wont be a referendum, or it’ll be between some kind of deal exit and the status quo of staying in. We all know that already.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> > > I earlier said:
>
> > > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
>
> >
>
> > Ah, okay. Do you really think that would have worked - and that it would in any way of helped the Lib Dems (or, more importantly, the country) ?
>
>
>
> I think it is working in Scotland to the extent that the SNP cannot escape blame for their failings by having a junior coalition partner to do that for them. I also think in general it's better to have these negotiations/debates more in the open than hidden in the Quad as happened with the Coalition.
>
>
>
> Whether it would have been better for the country and parties involved depends to a great extent on the choices the individuals concerned made.
>
> And that's fair enough. So another question: my memories of the details of the politics back then are slightly fuzzy (it's not as if much has happened since), so was this considered and, if so, why was it rejected?
>
> I'd also add that the Lib Dems were always about PR, and PR frequently involves coalitions.
I know there were books written about the Coalition negotiations, but I haven't read them, so I don't know.
There is PR, and then there is PR, as we can see with our implementation of D'Hondt. Similarly there are coalitions and then there are coalitions - see for example the current FG and FF arrangement in Ireland.
What you can say is that if you have a more PR system than FPTP then the power balance in the negotiations is different. In 2010 this balance was more than 5:1 in the Tories favour in terms of seats, but much closer to 3:2 in terms of votes. Something like the latter would have created a very different coalition.
> > @TOPPING said:
>
> > But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is not undemocratic if you are asking the same people.
>
>
>
> We ask the same people the same question every five years.
>
> "We have to ask you again, because we've failed to carry out your instructions in the last three years."
>
> I don't know what we call that system of government, but it sure as hell isn't democracy if all our MPs have to do is run down the clock when they don't like the results.
Problem is, the 52% are now 46% and none of the specific Brexit outcomes has a majority for Acceptable or better, including cancelling the whole thing. How do you interpret that instruction?
> If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
>
> TBP - 26%
> Cons - 13%
> UKIP - 3%
> CHUK - 2%
> Lab - 19%
> LDs - 21%
> Greens - 8%
> Others - 8%
What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
> > @TOPPING said:
> > > @glw said:
> >
> > > I know one thing, no Remainer will ever argue for a third referendum should Remaining be seen as a full endorsement of the EU and full speed ahead to further integration.
> >
> >
> >
> > Depends if new information comes to light. When the facts change, we should be open to change.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the past two years we have proven to destruction that Brexit cannot be delivered without serious economic and political harm. It would be negligent not to pause, think again and ask are you sure you want to do this in the light of this information.
> >
> > We haven’t proven that. Had the WA passed in March we’d now be in a transition period with a clear destination and certainty for businesses who could plan around that for the future final deal.
> >
> > On a No Deal Brexit, I’d agree with you.
> >
> > We have demonstrably proven that Brexit cannot be delivered otherwise where's your Brexit?
> >
> > Not here ergo it hasn't been delivered. No use with all this "if my uncle was a woman..." stuff about the WA.
> >
> > And I am one of the people who think the WA will still pass so hold your nerve.
>
> No, all we have proven is that MPs don't want to deliver Brexit. All it takes is them walking through the Aye lobby.
Some MPs are not as stupid as previously thought. Most appear to think that their constitutional responsibility disallows them for enacting legislation that causes harm to their constituents, even if 52% of the general population were conned into voting for it.
"So doctor, as I am paying you as I am a private patient, I instruct you to remove my otherwise healthy testes, as I would like to take back control of my urges." "Hmm", thinks Dr Makemoney "I'll introduce some delay, and if I suggest that the operation involves a rusty razor blade and Dr Mark-Mad-As-A-Fish-Francois he might just realise the pain ain't worth the gain" Time is rarely of the essence when it comes to carrying through a stupid decision.
> Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only.
>
> I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON.
> I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends.
> Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016.
>
> If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation.
> If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation.
> Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation.
>
> I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched.
>
> Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
Its not an uninteresting exercise but the result has to be approached with caution. The turnout in the referendum was 72.2%. I will be surprised if the turnout in the Euro elections is half of that. The results will be strongly influenced by which half votes.
> Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only.
>
> I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON.
> I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends.
> Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016.
>
> If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation.
> If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation.
> Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation.
>
> I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched.
>
> Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
1/2 Con is already looking like an overestimate. The residual Con voters will surely be majority Remain, as one poll subsample has already indicated.
> Regarding how the results of the Euros will map to Leave vs Remain, I do not not want to be accused of bias after the event so I have decided to publish here and now (as below) how I intend to do it - England only.
>
> I will compute the base Leave % as being = to BP + UKIP + 1/4 LAB + 1/2 CON.
> I will then uplift with a 5% contingency to sweep up the odds & ends.
> Finally I will compare my result with the 53% English vote for Brexit in 2016.
>
> If it is 53% or higher, the conclusion will be that we are still Leave Nation.
> If it is 48% or lower, OTOH, it will be that we have become Remain Nation.
> Anything in between will indicate that we are Confused Nation.
>
> I am saving this and will whip it out again on 24th May with the numbers crunched.
>
> Feel quite tense about how it will go. So much at stake. The future of the country no less.
26th May. Results not announced until late Sunday night, so as not to affect results in other EU countries (I know, hard to imagine that other countries are voting too!)
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
> >
> > TBP - 26%
> > Cons - 13%
> > UKIP - 3%
> > CHUK - 2%
> > Lab - 19%
> > LDs - 21%
> > Greens - 8%
> > Others - 8%
>
> What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
>
Applying the formula to this scores Leave at 46%.
REMAIN.
Good news.
Its a long time since we had a windy day btw. Under 5% again which is a pretty poor return for a massive capital investment.
>
> Wasted typing. Either there wont be a referendum, or it’ll be between some kind of deal exit and the status quo of staying in. We all know that already.
Ref2 in 2019 now a 25% chance on Betfair. This is still a lay, IMO, although I am not doing any more of it.
25% sounds about right for the chances of another Ref but in 2019 is a stretch. Every chance that, if it happens, it will not take place until 2020.
> An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
>
> The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
>
> As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE.
>
> And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
>
> So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
F1: probably be a little while before the markets are up (they weren't this morning) but Verstappen, Leclerc, Perez, and Sainz are probably the chaps I'll be looking at for Monaco. Maybe Ricciardo.
Surely Dave going, someone like if not actually TMay taking over and the very events that have transpired transpiring would have been assigned a non-trivial if not significant probability.
> https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1127888279284719616
Can they please get on with it
> O/T but right now more than 25% of our total energy needs are being met by solar energy. I know its a nice day and all but wow. I never thought I would see that in the UK.
>
> Its a long time since we had a windy day btw. Under 5% again which is a pretty poor return for a massive capital investment.
When you look at the averages over a long time period (or modelled from a longer time period of wind observations) then this is what you would expect. More solar power in summer and more wind power in winter, with the two complementing each other.
See, for example, Fig 2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115303591
Or Fig 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44853965_Seasonal_optimal_mix_of_wind_and_solar_power_in_a_future_highly_renewable_Europe
> 26th May. Results not announced until late Sunday night, so as not to affect results in other EU countries (I know, hard to imagine that other countries are voting too!)
Got it. Thanks. Guess I can hold out for an extra 48 hours. Deep breathing, yoga, long walks ... few dozen Stellas.
> > @TOPPING said:
> > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
> >
> > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
> >
> > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE.
> >
> > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
> >
> > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
>
> What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
I heard JRM on LBC this morning. I think if anyone could ever persuade me to vote remain, even ahead of Farage, it would be him.
Which I suppose is consistent with the way he votes in the Commons. To describe him as a muppet is deeply unfair to at least Kermit and arguably even Miss Piggy.
> > @TOPPING said:
> > An "impossible" instruction from a referendum that was passed by Parliament. Article 50 to start this "impossible" process was then enacted with Parliamentary approval, after that the two main parties stood on manifestos to deliver the "impossible" policy of the UK leaving the EU, a commitment which covers about 80% of our MPs. Finally the EU and UK government both agree that a deal has been reached with this "impossible" instruction as its basis.
> >
> > The only thing that is impossible is the behaviour of our two-faced MPs.
> >
> > As I said, salvation is at hand in the shape of the Brexit Party's overwhelming victory at the next GE.
> >
> > And as for your other points, the impossibility was the solipsism of those advocating impossible goals (eg. Baker, Francois, et al). It *could* have been perfectly possible had people been prepared to compromise. Which, apart from, er, the government, they weren't. It was also impossible, as we have seen, for a bipartisan system of government to deliver the policy of one of the parties.
> >
> > So do I blame Dave? I have never done to date because my belief is that asking the electorate is never a bad thing. But the whole process has been made impossible since his resignation.
>
> What I find amazing about the headbanging fraternity is why they did not take what was on offer, and then working to ratchet it up to where they wanted (which was/is perfectly possible). It further enhances the possibility that even MPs who support leave are not really very clever
Because they knew that when the public had had some of it - revealing both the damage and the hollowness of the cheery promises they had been made - the chances of them wanting more would be slim and the chances of wanting to go back would start to grow. Hence they are desperate to get beyond the point of no return in one bound, before their big con is exposed.
> https://twitter.com/paulembery/status/1127916788581322753
>
>
>
> She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region?
>
> Farage and Portillo had a very friendly Brexit chat on LBC recently, if he could somehow be persuaded to come aboard, now that This Week is ending, that would be Ab Fab
>
> Would he want to? It’d be very polarising, and it seems the public have gotten over his previous stint in government.
His most memorable moment was his defenestration, with his cringing SAS speech coming a close second. Still more of a heavyweight than all the contenders at the moment or the LOTO
> > @DavidL said:
> > O/T but right now more than 25% of our total energy needs are being met by solar energy. I know its a nice day and all but wow. I never thought I would see that in the UK.
> >
> > Its a long time since we had a windy day btw. Under 5% again which is a pretty poor return for a massive capital investment.
>
> When you look at the averages over a long time period (or modelled from a longer time period of wind observations) then this is what you would expect. More solar power in summer and more wind power in winter, with the two complementing each other.
>
> See, for example, Fig 2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115303591
> Or Fig 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44853965_Seasonal_optimal_mix_of_wind_and_solar_power_in_a_future_highly_renewable_Europe
Makes sense.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > If I had to guess, I’d say he won’t be able to resist and will overplay it in the final week, just as media and public attention peaks, and generate a counter reaction. Probably to the benefit of the LDs, who I could easily see edging Labour into second place. Something like:
> >
> > TBP - 26%
> > Cons - 13%
> > UKIP - 3%
> > CHUK - 2%
> > Lab - 19%
> > LDs - 21%
> > Greens - 8%
> > Others - 8%
>
> What makes you think the Cons will recover to 13%
>
It looks about right to me. I'd maybe have Con and Labour both a bit lower, and Greens a bit higher, probably just ahead of Con, but otherwise I'd be pretty close to those figures.
> https://twitter.com/paulembery/status/1127916788581322753
>
>
>
> She’s gone way off piste. Isn’t she standing in the South West region?
Working men's clubs are renowned for a certain type of irony. The cheers wont necessarily be an endorsement, more that she is a figure of fun.
> 1/2 Con is already looking like an overestimate. The residual Con voters will surely be majority Remain, as one poll subsample has already indicated.
Noted and agreed - but I do want to lean the model in favour of Leave because Leave is the peg in the sand from the actual Ref. I will not feel comfortable declaring that we now want to Remain unless it looks compelling.
>
> Its not an uninteresting exercise but the result has to be approached with caution. The turnout in the referendum was 72.2%. I will be surprised if the turnout in the Euro elections is half of that. The results will be strongly influenced by which half votes.
Yes, absolutely, turnout is highly relevant. I think that a higher proportion of 2016 Remainers will vote than 2016 Leavers.
This is part of the reason for the 5% contingency uplift for Leave which I plan to apply.
> The Brexit Party campaigns on saving democracy, and doing a good job of it, while undermining the very democracy they profess to love. Farage and his ilk are dangerous in a way that other politicians aren't by devaluing politics. Politicians who trash politics. Corbyn, Duncan Smith and politicians in between, campaign on policies and who is better at implementing them.
Indeed. They similarly claim to love their country whilst undermining and embarrassing the country they profess to love. I am also not convinced El Duce Farage is really a lover of democracy, he simply believes that stating such an affinity advances his egocentric cause. It must not be forgotten that he is an admirer of that great upholder of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Putin.