> @FrancisUrquhart said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @FrancisUrquhart said: > > > > > > I think it would be better classified as those people whose lives were vastly improved under Thatcher's free market expansion, but originally come from quite humble roots. All those people who worked hard, bought their council houses, did them up, moved up the ladder, gave their kids a better life etc etc etc. > > > > > --------- > > > > And yet that broadcast is basically saying that the Thatcher revolution was wrong, by jumping straight from 70s Labour to 90s New Labour and comparing them unfavourably. It's a very beguiling message. > > No they aren't. It carefully doesn't skips over Thatcher and goes to what a lot of people think was Blair "selling us out" to the EU by his terrible decision to give up part of the debate and also how he handled EU expansion. -------
This is why it works as propaganda. You take from it what you want.
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic?
We're not heading for a no deal exit.
Why do you say that? In the absence of a deal, which won’t pass, that is exactly what will happen. It’s in the legislation. Or do you expect a new PM to ask for another extension? To do what?
> @Byronic said: > What on earth possessed us all to think she'd be an OK prime minister? She is so bad, so very very very bad, wooden, stubborn, narrow-minded, clueless and awkward, I now believe she'd have been a pretty bad PM even if she hadn't had the mess of Brexit to "fix". As it is, she will go down as one of the worst in British history.
She managed to avoid having to resign as Home Secretary in six years, which was impressive given her predecessors, but has looked less impressive as the full effect of decisions that she made in that job has begun to become evident.
And she would never have become Home Secretary if Davis hadn't flounced out of the shadow Cabinet to trigger one of the more bizarre by-elections - so that's another way in which he had a hand in creating the mess we are in.
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic? <
+++++
No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke.
There's a 33% chance of any of these.
EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus:
No Deal: 25%
Revote: 25%
Revoke: 25%
Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25%
Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave.
As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
> @logical_song said: > TBP is an odd beast at the moment. It doesn't have any members, it's a limited company vehicle for Farage. He will need to do a lot of work to make it an ordinary party - at which point he'll start collecting chancers and flotsam as UKIP did.
It wouldn't be unfair to describe Farage as a chancer. He's happily jumped on several bandwagons, including supporting actual real-life fascists in other parts of Europe. And let's find out more about his ties to Putin (another fascist).
To those who loudly declaim calling Farage a fascist — and I have some sympathy with that — you need to explain why he associates with so many. The charitable explanation is as above: he's a chancer. In either case, we should fear him holding political power.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > > > > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > > > > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > > > > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > > > > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > > > > > You expect us to be ecstatic? > > > > We're not heading for a no deal exit. > > Why do you say that? In the absence of a deal, which won’t pass, that is exactly what will happen. It’s in the legislation. Or do you expect a new PM to ask for another extension? To do what?
Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen.
Also when push and shove come, the EU always end up giving us more extensions.
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic? <
+++++
No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke.
There's a 33% chance of any of these.
EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus:
No Deal: 25%
Revote: 25%
Revoke: 25%
Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25%
Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave.
As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
I am not at all sure that those who want No Deal will feel satisfied if Britain left the EU on the basis of a deal.
> @Cyclefree said: > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > You expect us to be ecstatic?
You're much closer to getting what you want than I am to getting what I want.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > > > > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > > > > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > > > > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > > > > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > > > > > You expect us to be ecstatic? < > > > > +++++ > > > > No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke. > > > > There's a 33% chance of any of these. > > > > EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus: > > > > No Deal: 25% > > Revote: 25% > > Revoke: 25% > > Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25% > > Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave. > > As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised. > > > > I am not at all sure that those who want No Deal will feel satisfied if Britain left the EU on the basis of a deal.
genie out of the bottle. Con vote and to a lesser extent Lab vote only returns if we leave on WTO terms. Otherwise if we leave EU on May's WA the Cons still with the same problem Cameron had regarding UKIP before GE 2015,
The problem with that poster, if there is one, is that the quote is presented as being part of the party manifesto so as to dupe people. Maybe alls fair and all that, and I dont think it works, but it is slightly dodgy
Plenty of quotes by Remainers about how they would honour the Referendum result can be put on posters.... But they won't squeal it's a smear, no sirreeee......
The Standard's report is a bit hard to follow. It looks as if Corbyn and May agreed there could be a second referendum but, well, as the Standard says: "A free vote on making any deal subject to a second referendum, which appears designed to block the campaign backed by 150 Labour MPs for a confirmatory ballot attached to any deal."
I think the conspiracy theory involves it being a free rather than whipped vote.
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic?
You're much closer to getting what you want than I am to getting what I want.
I would prefer to Remain, would be OK with departure with a WA followed by a long-term FTA. Neither seem likely.
No Deal is the default and it seems likely that we will shortly have a No Deal Prime Minister. They need do nothing at all and out we crash on 31 October. I’d say you’re pretty close to getting what you want.
Just looking at a couple of polls from elsewhere featured on Europe Elects:
In Spain, PSOE continue to advance with Citizens now second in front of the declining PP while VOX has collapsed from 10% to 3%.
In Denmark where they vote for the Folketing on June 5th, the centre-left bloc has 57% with the centre-right on 43% which is a commanding lead. The collapse in support for the Dansk Folkeparti is the key.
Perhaps some indications in some places the nationalist populist tide could be on the retreat.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > > > > > > > > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > > > > > > > > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > > > > > > > > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > > > > > > > > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > > > > > > > > > You expect us to be ecstatic? > > > > > > > > We're not heading for a no deal exit. > > > > Why do you say that? In the absence of a deal, which won’t pass, that is exactly what will happen. It’s in the legislation. Or do you expect a new PM to ask for another extension? To do what? > > Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen. > > Also when push and shove come, the EU always end up giving us more extensions.
The previous Cooper Act did not prevent a No Deal exit. Had the PM asked for an extension in a way that was bound to be rejected, or had rejected the EU's counter-offer (as would have been consistent with the wording of the Act), we could have left on April 12 with No Deal. That we didn't was May's choice. A future PM may choose differently.
The only surefire way to avoid No Deal is to Revoke A50. That may well be the nature of a Cooper II bill if the new Tory leader is elected on the basis of Unicorns or Nothing but I don't think there's a majority there fore such a radical move.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic?
You're much closer to getting what you want than I am to getting what I want.
I would prefer to Remain, would be OK with departure with a WA followed by a long-term FTA. Neither seem likely.
No Deal is the default and it seems likely that we will shortly have a No Deal Prime Minister. They need do nothing at all and out we crash on 31 October. I’d say you’re pretty close to getting what you want.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
I assume it counts as campaigning, and has to be registered/disclosed? If not, it’s a massive loophole.
Re Labour internal divisions at the wider membership level.
I have enjoyed seeing lots of young university-educated hard left-wing Labour members expressing total exasperation at their Messiah's failure to be as stridently pro-Remain, pro-EU as they are. Almost like they didn't understand what they were really voting for when they went for him...
If he'd been fiercely pro-EU, I wouldn't have dreamed of becoming a three-pound Corbynite myself. If anything I'm a bit disappointed he hasn't tried to take the party as a whole in a more sceptical direction. Wasn't the only reason I went for him of course, and I can't really complain I haven't had my value for money, but I don't think I can vote for Labour at the Euros.
In fact if you're left-wing and want Brexit, there's not a massive amount of choice out there. At the last Euros I voted communist because they were very upfront about wanting Out. Don't think I've even got that option this time round.
> @Pulpstar said: > Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen. >
Boles seems to think that cannot happen if Second Reading is lost because there wouldn't have to be any further Brexit votes which could be used to grab Parliamentary time from the Executive as happened in April (was it only in April?)
Even if it did happen, last time there was a crucial vote won by the single vote of the member for Peterborough. Were Labour to lose Peterborough to the Tories or Brexit Party then, all other things remaining equal, a future such vote would fail.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
> @RobD said: > I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook. > > > > I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc. > > I assume it counts as campaigning, and has to be registered/disclosed? If not, it’s a massive loophole.
Interesting question...as LedByDonkeys wish to remain anonymous and claim all their funding has come from crowdfunding, but when you look at the fund raising page there are several very large anonymous donations.
I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref.
And Brexiteers aren’t as mad as the nats?
Well I’ve often said Scot Nats and Leavers are two cheeks of the same arse.
Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution.
Both have economically illiterate/heroic policies when it comes to trade and the economy post independence.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook. > > > > I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc. > > Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
Erhhh...I said I think it is the same as the dodgy front groups (many of which are pro-Brexit). I think there should be transparency, be it LedByDonkeys, Farage or ChangeUK.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
Dodgy Nige has set it up to circumvent the rules.
Political parties can only accept donations of more than £500 from UK registered voters or organisations.
But a loophole in the law means payments under £500 aren’t considered “donations”, and so could come from anyone, anywhere in the world.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News.
He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
>
> I assume it counts as campaigning, and has to be registered/disclosed? If not, it’s a massive loophole.
Interesting question...as LedByDonkeys wish to remain anonymous and claim all their funding has come from crowdfunding, but when you look at the fund raising page there are several very large anonymous donations.
I await Carole Cadwalladr’s investigation with great anticipation.
Has anybody told England this is a warm-up game....throwing the ball as hard as you can and taking a team mates finger off probably isn't the best of ideas.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook. > > > > I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc. > > Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him. > > But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations? > > Dodgy Nige has set it up to circumvent the rules. > > Political parties can only accept donations of more than £500 from UK registered voters or organisations. > > But a loophole in the law means payments under £500 aren’t considered “donations”, and so could come from anyone, anywhere in the world. > > > https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farages-brexit-party-lets-16063819
Labour ’s Chris Bryant said: “A fake party, with fake members offering fake solutions. That sums them up.”
No doubt Chris be claiming that they have fake voters too.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News.
He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
So to answer your question, yes.
Sounds like the law has been broken then. I trust you have complained to the Commission?
Still very hard to call. I can't get a fix on it at all, talking to people, as I do on the doorstep all the time. Certainly far less than GE/Ref, so somewhere between 35% and 50%?
> @RobD said: > I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook. > > > > I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc. > > Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him. > > But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations? > > Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News. > > He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor. > > So to answer your question, yes. > > Sounds like the law has been broken then. I trust you have complained to the Commission?
It sounds like the Daily Mirror might have broken the law!
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News.
He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
So to answer your question, yes.
Sounds like the law has been broken then. I trust you have complained to the Commission?
I'm much more interested in finding out who is buying Nigel Farage and what he is selling.
You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust.
Simply holding EU elections is an acknowedgement of how shit the UK's political class have been. May has to own that, publically, with maximum humiliation, before she departs the stage.
> @DoubleD said: > > self inflicted. Suicide mission by the Blarites who run the party. -------
That sums up why the two main parties are screwed. Tories like you think the party is run by Blairites, while Labour grassroots convinced themselves the party was run by Thatcherites.
> @algarkirk said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > > > > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > > > > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > > > > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > > > > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > > > > > You expect us to be ecstatic? < > > > > +++++ > > > > No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke. > > > > There's a 33% chance of any of these. > > > > EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus: > > > > No Deal: 25% > > Revote: 25% > > Revoke: 25% > > Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25% > > Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave. > > As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
Revoke will never happen, or will be un-revoked. The people are on a mission now. Euro ELections will tell us more.
I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News.
He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
So to answer your question, yes.
Sounds like the law has been broken then. I trust you have complained to the Commission?
I'm much more interested in finding out who is buying Nigel Farage and what he is selling.
You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust.
Wasn’t the large donor to the Brexit party revealed a few weeks ago?
"In a new poll of British adults, they found that 88 per cent of the public identify as either a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”—while only 66 per cent of people identify with one of the main parties.
The difference is even bigger when it comes to those who identify “very” or “fairly” strongly. 72 per cent of respondents said they did so when it comes to their stance on Brexit, whereas only 47 per cent felt the same about their political party."
"Populus found 54 per cent of Labour voters identify very or fairly strongly as Remainers. For the Conservatives, it’s 59 per cent who identify very or fairly strongly as leavers.
What’s more, Labour Remainers are more likely to identify strongly with their “Remain” identity than their “Labour” one. The same dynamic plays out with Conservative Leavers."
> Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution.
> Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > > Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution. > > > > That's overegging the pudding > > Ducking autocorrect.
You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%.
This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!!
> @stodge said: > Just looking at a couple of polls from elsewhere featured on Europe Elects: > > In Spain, PSOE continue to advance with Citizens now second in front of the declining PP while VOX has collapsed from 10% to 3%. > > In Denmark where they vote for the Folketing on June 5th, the centre-left bloc has 57% with the centre-right on 43% which is a commanding lead. The collapse in support for the Dansk Folkeparti is the key. > > Perhaps some indications in some places the nationalist populist tide could be on the retreat.
Yes, the Danish party has been on the slide for a while, accentuated by a split to a harder-right Islamophobe one-man party (think Wilders) which has peeled off 2.5% of the vote. As in some other countries, the far left is doing well - 6% up to 18% between the traditional Socialist People's Party and the ex-Communist red-green alliance. The social democrats are doing OK too, though, 2% up on last time, as are the centrist liberals (+3.5%).
> @DoubleD said: > > @algarkirk said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored. > > > > > > > > > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained. > > > > > > > > > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result. > > > > > > > > > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them? > > > > > > > > > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends. > > > > > > > > > > You expect us to be ecstatic? < > > > > > > > > +++++ > > > > > > > > No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke. > > > > > > > > There's a 33% chance of any of these. > > > > > > > > EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus: > > > > > > > > No Deal: 25% > > > > Revote: 25% > > > > Revoke: 25% > > > > Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25% > > > > Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave. > > > > As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised. > > Revoke will never happen, or will be un-revoked. The people are on a mission now. Euro ELections will tell us more.
"The people" are divided, anxious and angry and anyone claiming that there is national unity of purpose is wrong.
> @david_herdson said: > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672 > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081 > > > > > > > > Why wouldn’t they be motivated? > > > > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref. > > You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%. > > This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!! > > https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
How did they find a statistically valid sample for the CUKs?
It is also worth bearing in mind that there are a significantly large number of people who quite legitimately appear on more than 1 electoral register. These intention to vote figures are absurdly high but even if they were borne out turnout would be lower.
Comparing the latest Yougov to those in 2014 reveals an interesting difference; the percentage who say they are certain to vote is similar to last time, but the number who say they are certain not to or don’t know how they’ll vote is much larger, around double.
I’m not entirely sure what this means since i’m not convinced we’ll see a particularly bad turnout.
I wonder if we’ll see some dramatic changes in the final week’s polling given this has been a much more low-key and less anticipated election than last time.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Meanwhile, further polling reinforcing the single most important psephological fact of the moment: > > https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/polling-voters-identify-leave-demographics-remain-labour-tories-european-election-polls > > "In a new poll of British adults, they found that 88 per cent of the public identify as either a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”—while only 66 per cent of people identify with one of the main parties. > > The difference is even bigger when it comes to those who identify “very” or “fairly” strongly. 72 per cent of respondents said they did so when it comes to their stance on Brexit, whereas only 47 per cent felt the same about their political party." > > "Populus found 54 per cent of Labour voters identify very or fairly strongly as Remainers. For the Conservatives, it’s 59 per cent who identify very or fairly strongly as leavers. > > What’s more, Labour Remainers are more likely to identify strongly with their “Remain” identity than their “Labour” one. The same dynamic plays out with Conservative Leavers."
Interesting, but not unexpected: leave and remain descibe positions in relation to one particular issue, rather than positions in relation to everything. You have very clear views on whether the UK should be a member of the EU; so identify strongly with one side of the argument. But politics is about views on a while range of measures, and the chances of your views matching exactly to one party or other across all of them seem pretty slim.
Overall, I think turnout will be more like 40%, with Brexit Party supporters more motivated than the average voter to turnout, but so too will be Lib Dem voters.
Polling now suggests that what was at one point, a big gap in enthusiasm between Leavers and Remainers has now largely vanished.
> Yes, the Danish party has been on the slide for a while, accentuated by a split to a harder-right Islamophobe one-man party (think Wilders) which has peeled off 2.5% of the vote. As in some other countries, the far left is doing well - 6% up to 18% between the traditional Socialist People's Party and the ex-Communist red-green alliance. The social democrats are doing OK too, though, 2% up on last time, as are the centrist liberals (+3.5%).
Indeed, it looks a pretty comfortable win for the centre-left bloc - I have them up 57-43 over the centre-right bloc and getting up to 68 seats.
In Australia, it also looks like the end of the line for the centre-right Coalition with Labor enjoying a modest but significant 51.5-48.5 lead in the final Newsweek poll. The seat projection has Labor gaining 11 seats to 80 and the Liberal/National Coalition falling to 65 leaving Bill Shorten as the new PM.
Hitchens was fantastic on today’s show. The lady next to him, a feminist who has written a book that sounds quite interesting, Caroline Criado Perez, had tweeted that it would be a car crash having to appear with him, yet they seemed to agree on almost everything.
Agreed. Your post here just prompted me to watch it. Very good episode and far more enlightening than much of the dross that passes for current affairs analysis nowadays. I thought the Hitch took a bit of a shine to Miss Perez by the end!!
I don’t really understand the issue about the high TBP self-reported turnout. If you’re engaged enough to change your support to a new party (same goes for the CUKs who are also high) then you are probably engaged enough to vote. If you look at the political engagement columns their support drops off precipitously with less engagement.
The question is about how representative of all EP election voters are the TBP switchers.
> @TGOHF said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > I'm much more interested in finding out who is buying Nigel Farage and what he is selling. > > > You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust. > > "Because the opposite of my worldview could never prosper without cheating." > > It's a form of illness. > > >
Well that’s not what I wrote but there are adult literacy classes available if you need help with that.
I guess the more relevant question is whether Brexit party voters are overstating their likelihood to vote proportionately more than other parties. Don't see any particular reason to believe they are.
Hitchens was fantastic on today’s show. The lady next to him, a feminist who has written a book that sounds quite interesting, Caroline Criado Perez, had tweeted that it would be a car crash having to appear with him, yet they seemed to agree on almost everything.
Agreed. Your post here just prompted me to watch it. Very good episode and far more enlightening than much of the dross that passes for current affairs analysis nowadays. I thought the Hitch took a bit of a shine to Miss Perez by the end!!
I think you are right there, he seemed smitten by her, The happiest I have ever seen him I'd say!
Mr. Eagles, could be useful to compare past EU election turnouts with the corresponding certainty to vote polling (although no idea how hard it would be to dig up said figures).
After the Scottish subsample earlier, I repeated the analysis I performed the other day on the SE region.
With the different polling percentages and number of seats, the picture looks different. The threshold for the first seat starts at just before 10%, but to get a better than evens chance of a seat, you need about 10.5%. The Greens are right on the borderline. BXP are also right on the borderline of a second seat.
Seats will fall as follows: SNP, BXP, SNP, SNP, LD. It's then between Green and Brexit for the final seat. That's the whole of the battle in Scotland if that subsample is a reliable indicator of the vote on the day.
SNP can afford to shed about 5 percentage points before they're in danger of losing the third seat. Labour, Change and Conservative should seriously consider lending their vote to whichever out of Green and Brexit they like better (or hate less). Even some SNP and LD voters can afford to switch tactically.
> @AndyJS said: > I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
> @Stereotomy said: > I guess the more relevant question is whether Brexit party voters are overstating their likelihood to vote proportionately more than other parties. Don't see any particular reason to believe they are.
Well this could be a sampling issue. The people in the sample could be truthfully reporting their likelihood to vote, but if turnout ends up ~35% then the sample won't have been representative of the population.
That seems quite possible given biases like non-response bias. The doubt is whether the sample is representative of the ~35% who will vote. If they are, no problem. If they aren't then perhaps TBP, CUK, etc, are being overstated in the polls and Con, Lab, etc, are being understated - but if it is a duff sample then all sorts of other things could be wrong with it.
> @david_herdson said: > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672 > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081 > > > > > > > > Why wouldn’t they be motivated? > > > > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref. > > You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%. > > This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!! > > https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
Vote? I doubt if most of them can draw a cross in a box.
Additional: there is a chance of the SNP picking up a 4th seat. It could *just* happen on 40%, but realistically it's likelier on about 43%. It's an odd artefact of the system. If you have 2pp SNP switch to Green, it's a guaranteed extra seat for the not-Brexit side. If 2pp Green switch to SNP, it's likeliest that will be lost. It's tactically asymmetrical.
> @AndyJS said: > I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong?
Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017.
I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > But none of those facts in any way justify comparisons with Hitler. All of the important factors that drove his rise to power and his actions as he made that rise including complete economic collapse, a series of recent armed revolts and an extremist ideology underpinning his party are completely absent today. Making such comparisons even in passing is just idiotic scaremongering. > > I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini. > > But there are some worrying echoes which we should pay more careful attention to. > > Other echoes:- > > There has been a very serious financial crisis, the effects of which have been very long-standing and painful for some people. That in part is one reason why once fringe parties have been able to capture voters’ attention and support. > > There have been people on the fringes willing to contemplate violence (and in some cases have used it). You will be well aware of the security services’ concerns about the threat from far right extremists. There is also some evidence that some of these groups and people are supporting Farage and his party, even though he says he does not want their support. I am a tad cynical. It strikes me as about as sincere as when Corbyn says that anti-semites don’t speak in his name but seems otherwise baffled as to why they are attracted to a party he leads. With no structures within the Brexit Party we have absolutely no transparency whether Farage’s words are accompanied by any action. > > Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke. > > Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy. > > Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO. > > History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain.
> @DavidL said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > @TheScreamingEagles said: > > > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081 > > > > > > > > > > > > Why wouldn’t they be motivated? > > > > > > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref. > > > > You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%. > > > > This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!! > > > > https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf > > How did they find a statistically valid sample for the CUKs? > > It is also worth bearing in mind that there are a significantly large number of people who quite legitimately appear on more than 1 electoral register. These intention to vote figures are absurdly high but even if they were borne out turnout would be lower.
True. But the SIndyRef turnout was 84.6%. Some of the discrepancy can be put down to the double-registering factor but not all 10%, by any means.
Mr. Meeks, an interesting finding, that 8 out of 9 have such an identity whereas only 6 out of 9 have a party identity.
Think that adds credence to my view that the division will be a prolonged one.
As you may know, this has been my longstanding belief. It's a part of my thesis that the referendum result was an inflexion point leading to Britain's longterm decline.
Important to point out also that these are percentages of Westminster VI that will turnout for the European election, It should be obvious to get a bad European voteshare the main parties will have to do much worse in turning out their Westminster voters, and that small parties that do well in Europeans have to have a large portion of the Westminster VI voting for them to do well in Europeans, even on smaller turnouts.
Comments
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @FrancisUrquhart said:
> > >
> > > I think it would be better classified as those people whose lives were vastly improved under Thatcher's free market expansion, but originally come from quite humble roots. All those people who worked hard, bought their council houses, did them up, moved up the ladder, gave their kids a better life etc etc etc.
> > >
> > ---------
> >
> > And yet that broadcast is basically saying that the Thatcher revolution was wrong, by jumping straight from 70s Labour to 90s New Labour and comparing them unfavourably. It's a very beguiling message.
>
> No they aren't. It carefully doesn't skips over Thatcher and goes to what a lot of people think was Blair "selling us out" to the EU by his terrible decision to give up part of the debate and also how he handled EU expansion.
-------
This is why it works as propaganda. You take from it what you want.
> What on earth possessed us all to think she'd be an OK prime minister? She is so bad, so very very very bad, wooden, stubborn, narrow-minded, clueless and awkward, I now believe she'd have been a pretty bad PM even if she hadn't had the mess of Brexit to "fix". As it is, she will go down as one of the worst in British history.
She managed to avoid having to resign as Home Secretary in six years, which was impressive given her predecessors, but has looked less impressive as the full effect of decisions that she made in that job has begun to become evident.
And she would never have become Home Secretary if Davis hadn't flounced out of the shadow Cabinet to trigger one of the more bizarre by-elections - so that's another way in which he had a hand in creating the mess we are in.
As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
https://twitter.com/Fox_Claire/status/1129076399837536257
> TBP is an odd beast at the moment. It doesn't have any members, it's a limited company vehicle for Farage. He will need to do a lot of work to make it an ordinary party - at which point he'll start collecting chancers and flotsam as UKIP did.
It wouldn't be unfair to describe Farage as a chancer. He's happily jumped on several bandwagons, including supporting actual real-life fascists in other parts of Europe.
And let's find out more about his ties to Putin (another fascist).
To those who loudly declaim calling Farage a fascist — and I have some sympathy with that — you need to explain why he associates with so many. The charitable explanation is as above: he's a chancer. In either case, we should fear him holding political power.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> >
>
> > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> >
>
> > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> >
>
> > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> >
>
> > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> >
>
> > You expect us to be ecstatic?
>
>
>
> We're not heading for a no deal exit.
>
> Why do you say that? In the absence of a deal, which won’t pass, that is exactly what will happen. It’s in the legislation. Or do you expect a new PM to ask for another extension? To do what?
Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen.
Also when push and shove come, the EU always end up giving us more extensions.
https://twitter.com/James_BG/status/1129350234784567296
> Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> You expect us to be ecstatic?
You're much closer to getting what you want than I am to getting what I want.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081?s=21
> twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672?s=21
It will be the Brexiteers equivalent of all the remainers signing the online revoke petition.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> >
>
> > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> >
>
> > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> >
>
> > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> >
>
> > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> >
>
> > You expect us to be ecstatic? <
>
>
>
> +++++
>
>
>
> No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke.
>
>
>
> There's a 33% chance of any of these.
>
>
>
> EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus:
>
>
>
> No Deal: 25%
>
> Revote: 25%
>
> Revoke: 25%
>
> Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25%
>
> Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave.
>
> As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
>
>
>
> I am not at all sure that those who want No Deal will feel satisfied if Britain left the EU on the basis of a deal.
genie out of the bottle. Con vote and to a lesser extent Lab vote only returns if we leave on WTO terms. Otherwise if we leave EU on May's WA the Cons still with the same problem Cameron had regarding UKIP before GE 2015,
> The Brexit Party has already reached the point where highlighting a direct quote is a smear:
>
> https://twitter.com/Fox_Claire/status/1129076399837536257
Plenty of quotes by Remainers about how they would honour the Referendum result can be put on posters.... But they won't squeal it's a smear, no sirreeee......
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1129352205826449409
What a miserable time for the Conservative Party...
> Well that's clear then....https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1129337699679244288
>
>
>
> Given the Standard’s report about him agreeing with May to stop a second referendum even being put to the vote, who does he think he’s kidding?
The Standard's report is a bit hard to follow. It looks as if Corbyn and May agreed there could be a second referendum but, well, as the Standard says:
"A free vote on making any deal subject to a second referendum, which appears designed to block the campaign backed by 150 Labour MPs for a confirmatory ballot attached to any deal."
I think the conspiracy theory involves it being a free rather than whipped vote.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bombshell-brexit-leak-reveals-theresa-may-and-jeremy-corbyn-discussed-plan-to-leave-eu-on-july-31-a4144686.html
No Deal is the default and it seems likely that we will shortly have a No Deal Prime Minister. They need do nothing at all and out we crash on 31 October. I’d say you’re pretty close to getting what you want.
In Spain, PSOE continue to advance with Citizens now second in front of the declining PP while VOX has collapsed from 10% to 3%.
In Denmark where they vote for the Folketing on June 5th, the centre-left bloc has 57% with the centre-right on 43% which is a commanding lead. The collapse in support for the Dansk Folkeparti is the key.
Perhaps some indications in some places the nationalist populist tide could be on the retreat.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You expect us to be ecstatic?
> >
> >
> >
> > We're not heading for a no deal exit.
> >
> > Why do you say that? In the absence of a deal, which won’t pass, that is exactly what will happen. It’s in the legislation. Or do you expect a new PM to ask for another extension? To do what?
>
> Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen.
>
> Also when push and shove come, the EU always end up giving us more extensions.
The previous Cooper Act did not prevent a No Deal exit. Had the PM asked for an extension in a way that was bound to be rejected, or had rejected the EU's counter-offer (as would have been consistent with the wording of the Act), we could have left on April 12 with No Deal. That we didn't was May's choice. A future PM may choose differently.
The only surefire way to avoid No Deal is to Revoke A50. That may well be the nature of a Cooper II bill if the new Tory leader is elected on the basis of Unicorns or Nothing but I don't think there's a majority there fore such a radical move.
I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
I have enjoyed seeing lots of young university-educated hard left-wing Labour members expressing total exasperation at their Messiah's failure to be as stridently pro-Remain, pro-EU as they are. Almost like they didn't understand what they were really voting for when they went for him...
If he'd been fiercely pro-EU, I wouldn't have dreamed of becoming a three-pound Corbynite myself. If anything I'm a bit disappointed he hasn't tried to take the party as a whole in a more sceptical direction. Wasn't the only reason I went for him of course, and I can't really complain I haven't had my value for money, but I don't think I can vote for Labour at the Euros.
In fact if you're left-wing and want Brexit, there's not a massive amount of choice out there. At the last Euros I voted communist because they were very upfront about wanting Out. Don't think I've even got that option this time round.
> Cooper and co can take control of parliament (And bung through an act in a few days) if and when needed, since there is no "No deal" majority in parliament that is what is overwhemingly likely to happen.
>
Boles seems to think that cannot happen if Second Reading is lost because there wouldn't have to be any further Brexit votes which could be used to grab Parliamentary time from the Executive as happened in April (was it only in April?)
Even if it did happen, last time there was a crucial vote won by the single vote of the member for Peterborough. Were Labour to lose Peterborough to the Tories or Brexit Party then, all other things remaining equal, a future such vote would fail.
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
>
> I assume it counts as campaigning, and has to be registered/disclosed? If not, it’s a massive loophole.
Interesting question...as LedByDonkeys wish to remain anonymous and claim all their funding has come from crowdfunding, but when you look at the fund raising page there are several very large anonymous donations.
Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution.
Both have economically illiterate/heroic policies when it comes to trade and the economy post independence.
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
>
> Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
Erhhh...I said I think it is the same as the dodgy front groups (many of which are pro-Brexit). I think there should be transparency, be it LedByDonkeys, Farage or ChangeUK.
Stuart Dickson recently resurfaced after what must have been a seven-odd year ban for quoting, ahem, Caledonian cross-sections.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369604151812096
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369812424110080
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1129374767654547456
Political parties can only accept donations of more than £500 from UK registered voters or organisations.
But a loophole in the law means payments under £500 aren’t considered “donations”, and so could come from anyone, anywhere in the world.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farages-brexit-party-lets-16063819
He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
So to answer your question, yes.
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369102743744513
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369604151812096
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369812424110080
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1129374767654547456
All rubbish. Will all backfire
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
>
> Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
>
> But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
>
> Dodgy Nige has set it up to circumvent the rules.
>
> Political parties can only accept donations of more than £500 from UK registered voters or organisations.
>
> But a loophole in the law means payments under £500 aren’t considered “donations”, and so could come from anyone, anywhere in the world.
>
>
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farages-brexit-party-lets-16063819
Labour ’s Chris Bryant said: “A fake party, with fake members offering fake solutions. That sums them up.”
No doubt Chris be claiming that they have fake voters too.
> @Scott_P said:
> https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1129352205826449409
>
>
> What a miserable time for the Conservative Party...
self inflicted. Suicide mission by the Blarites who run the party.
> https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
>
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
>
>
>
> Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
Still very hard to call. I can't get a fix on it at all, talking to people, as I do on the doorstep all the time. Certainly far less than GE/Ref, so somewhere between 35% and 50%?
> I have to say I have been rather uncomfortable with an anonymous group putting political attack posters. For me it is the same as all these dodgy front groups putting attack ads on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I think there should be transparency in who they are, where all the money is coming form etc.
>
> Given that Nigel Farage is being shifty as hell about how his entire political party and indeed lifestyle is being funded, it seems odd to focus on one group who are putting up direct quotations on posters that are inconvenient to him.
>
> But aren’t all donations above a threshold disclosed to the Commission? Or are you suggesting that they are deliberately hiding their donations?
>
> Nigel Farage is deliberately hiding the funding of his lifestyle. His sugar daddy was furious when he was outed by Channel 4 News.
>
> He is also deliberately hiding for as long as possible the name of the original donor.
>
> So to answer your question, yes.
>
> Sounds like the law has been broken then. I trust you have complained to the Commission?
It sounds like the Daily Mirror might have broken the law!
You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust.
> @Scott_P said:
> https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1129352205826449409
>
>
> What a miserable time for the Conservative Party...
Simply holding EU elections is an acknowedgement of how shit the UK's political class have been. May has to own that, publically, with maximum humiliation, before she departs the stage.
>
> self inflicted. Suicide mission by the Blarites who run the party.
-------
That sums up why the two main parties are screwed. Tories like you think the party is run by Blairites, while Labour grassroots convinced themselves the party was run by Thatcherites.
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369102743744513
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369604151812096
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369812424110080
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1129374767654547456 <
+++++
When citing Ian Dunt, it's always good to remember that, before the referendum, he was an ardent Leaver, and eurosceptic. Yes.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/11/07/comment-the-left-must-abandon-the-eu
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
>
> >
>
> > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
>
> >
>
> > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
>
> >
>
> > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
>
> >
>
> > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
>
> >
>
> > You expect us to be ecstatic? <
>
>
>
> +++++
>
>
>
> No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke.
>
>
>
> There's a 33% chance of any of these.
>
>
>
> EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus:
>
>
>
> No Deal: 25%
>
> Revote: 25%
>
> Revoke: 25%
>
> Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25%
>
> Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave.
>
> As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
Revoke will never happen, or will be un-revoked. The people are on a mission now. Euro ELections will tell us more.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/11/tory-donor-jeremy-hosking-200000-nigel-farage-brexit-party
The greatest flaw that I possess
I thank The Lords that I've been blessed
With more than my share of crappiness!
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/polling-voters-identify-leave-demographics-remain-labour-tories-european-election-polls
"In a new poll of British adults, they found that 88 per cent of the public identify as either a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”—while only 66 per cent of people identify with one of the main parties.
The difference is even bigger when it comes to those who identify “very” or “fairly” strongly. 72 per cent of respondents said they did so when it comes to their stance on Brexit, whereas only 47 per cent felt the same about their political party."
"Populus found 54 per cent of Labour voters identify very or fairly strongly as Remainers. For the Conservatives, it’s 59 per cent who identify very or fairly strongly as leavers.
What’s more, Labour Remainers are more likely to identify strongly with their “Remain” identity than their “Labour” one. The same dynamic plays out with Conservative Leavers."
That's overegging the pudding
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369102743744513
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369604151812096
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369812424110080
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1129374767654547456 <
>
>
> +++++
>
> When citing Ian Dunt, it's always good to remember that, before the referendum, he was an ardent Leaver, and eurosceptic. Yes.
>
> https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/11/07/comment-the-left-must-abandon-the-eu
Dunt and O'Brien often merge into 1 big frothing remoaner cliche, the sort you find on twitter but never bump into in real life.
> > Both claim they are colonials under the yolk of an unwanted foreign power who they blame for all their ills and only freedom/independence is the solution.
>
>
>
> That's overegging the pudding
>
> Ducking autocorrect.
You need to shell out on better software
> https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
>
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
>
>
>
> Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
>
> I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref.
You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%.
This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!!
https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
> Just looking at a couple of polls from elsewhere featured on Europe Elects:
>
> In Spain, PSOE continue to advance with Citizens now second in front of the declining PP while VOX has collapsed from 10% to 3%.
>
> In Denmark where they vote for the Folketing on June 5th, the centre-left bloc has 57% with the centre-right on 43% which is a commanding lead. The collapse in support for the Dansk Folkeparti is the key.
>
> Perhaps some indications in some places the nationalist populist tide could be on the retreat.
Yes, the Danish party has been on the slide for a while, accentuated by a split to a harder-right Islamophobe one-man party (think Wilders) which has peeled off 2.5% of the vote. As in some other countries, the far left is doing well - 6% up to 18% between the traditional Socialist People's Party and the ex-Communist red-green alliance. The social democrats are doing OK too, though, 2% up on last time, as are the centrist liberals (+3.5%).
> > @algarkirk said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > > Apparently the anger of Brexiteers must be appeased. But the anger of Remainers must be ignored.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > How on earth Brexiteers think this will create a consensus and allow the country to “move on” is never explained.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The anger of the Brexiteers was appeased by giving them a referendum. It’s been reignited by the non implementation of the result.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Why would Remainers be angry? They lost a referendum three years ago, but we are still in the EU. They should be ecstatic, how much better could it have gone for them?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > We are heading in short order for a No Deal exit to be implemented by one of the most incompetent governments in living memory, no matter who leads it, with no plan, having trashed our reputation with our closest allies and friends.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You expect us to be ecstatic? <
> >
> >
> >
> > +++++
> >
> >
> >
> > No Deal is far from certain. I'd have all three possibilities as roughly equal now: No Deal, Revote, Revoke.
> >
> >
> >
> > There's a 33% chance of any of these.
> >
> >
> >
> > EDIT: Actually, no, I have forgotten there are other alternatives, so I'd put the chances thus:
> >
> >
> >
> > No Deal: 25%
> >
> > Revote: 25%
> >
> > Revoke: 25%
> >
> > Various other options (endless extensions, a surprise offer from the EU, a miraculous solution to the backstop problem, PM Boris agreeing to EFTA): a combined: 25%
> >
> > Revoke slightly the more likely now, and the longer goes on, the more likely. Incidentally considering the options in a way that amounts to 100% divided up, revoke and revote are not part of the same package. A revote will end (one day) in an outcome - remain or leave.
> >
> > As to Farage, his support vanishes if people believe the main parties are going to discharge their mandate. UKIPs vote disappears as soon as they are tainted with racism etc. The great majority of Farage support is moderate and democratic, made up of people who have been marginalised.
>
> Revoke will never happen, or will be un-revoked. The people are on a mission now. Euro ELections will tell us more.
"The people" are divided, anxious and angry and anyone claiming that there is national unity of purpose is wrong.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
> >
> >
> >
> > Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
> >
> > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref.
>
> You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%.
>
> This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!!
>
> https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
How did they find a statistically valid sample for the CUKs?
It is also worth bearing in mind that there are a significantly large number of people who quite legitimately appear on more than 1 electoral register. These intention to vote figures are absurdly high but even if they were borne out turnout would be lower.
I’m not entirely sure what this means since i’m not convinced we’ll see a particularly bad turnout.
I wonder if we’ll see some dramatic changes in the final week’s polling given this has been a much more low-key and less anticipated election than last time.
> Meanwhile, further polling reinforcing the single most important psephological fact of the moment:
>
> https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/polling-voters-identify-leave-demographics-remain-labour-tories-european-election-polls
>
> "In a new poll of British adults, they found that 88 per cent of the public identify as either a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”—while only 66 per cent of people identify with one of the main parties.
>
> The difference is even bigger when it comes to those who identify “very” or “fairly” strongly. 72 per cent of respondents said they did so when it comes to their stance on Brexit, whereas only 47 per cent felt the same about their political party."
>
> "Populus found 54 per cent of Labour voters identify very or fairly strongly as Remainers. For the Conservatives, it’s 59 per cent who identify very or fairly strongly as leavers.
>
> What’s more, Labour Remainers are more likely to identify strongly with their “Remain” identity than their “Labour” one. The same dynamic plays out with Conservative Leavers."
Interesting, but not unexpected: leave and remain descibe positions in relation to one particular issue, rather than positions in relation to everything. You have very clear views on whether the UK should be a member of the EU; so identify strongly with one side of the argument. But politics is about views on a while range of measures, and the chances of your views matching exactly to one party or other across all of them seem pretty slim.
> https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
>
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
>
>
>
> Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
85% won't vote.
Overall, I think turnout will be more like 40%, with Brexit Party supporters more motivated than the average voter to turnout, but so too will be Lib Dem voters.
Polling now suggests that what was at one point, a big gap in enthusiasm between Leavers and Remainers has now largely vanished.
> Yes, the Danish party has been on the slide for a while, accentuated by a split to a harder-right Islamophobe one-man party (think Wilders) which has peeled off 2.5% of the vote. As in some other countries, the far left is doing well - 6% up to 18% between the traditional Socialist People's Party and the ex-Communist red-green alliance. The social democrats are doing OK too, though, 2% up on last time, as are the centrist liberals (+3.5%).
Indeed, it looks a pretty comfortable win for the centre-left bloc - I have them up 57-43 over the centre-right bloc and getting up to 68 seats.
In Australia, it also looks like the end of the line for the centre-right Coalition with Labor enjoying a modest but significant 51.5-48.5 lead in the final Newsweek poll. The seat projection has Labor gaining 11 seats to 80 and the Liberal/National Coalition falling to 65 leaving Bill Shorten as the new PM.
> > @Byronic said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369102743744513
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369604151812096
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1129369812424110080
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1129374767654547456 <
> >
> >
> > +++++
> >
> > When citing Ian Dunt, it's always good to remember that, before the referendum, he was an ardent Leaver, and eurosceptic. Yes.
> >
> > https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/11/07/comment-the-left-must-abandon-the-eu
>
> Dunt and O'Brien often merge into 1 big frothing remoaner cliche, the sort you find on twitter but never bump into in real life.
You can decide for yourself whether that’s because they don’t exist or because they steer well clear of you.
The question is about how representative of all EP election voters are the TBP switchers.
> I'm much more interested in finding out who is buying Nigel Farage and what he is selling.
> You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust.
"Because the opposite of my worldview could never prosper without cheating."
It's a form of illness.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
>
> > I'm much more interested in finding out who is buying Nigel Farage and what he is selling.
>
> > You, on the other hand, seem much more interested in throwing up dust.
>
> "Because the opposite of my worldview could never prosper without cheating."
>
> It's a form of illness.
>
>
>
Well that’s not what I wrote but there are adult literacy classes available if you need help with that.
Mr. Meeks, an interesting finding, that 8 out of 9 have such an identity whereas only 6 out of 9 have a party identity.
Think that adds credence to my view that the division will be a prolonged one.
> https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672?s=21
>
> https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081?s=21
I guess the more relevant question is whether Brexit party voters are overstating their likelihood to vote proportionately more than other parties. Don't see any particular reason to believe they are.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1129345882950918150
>
> Paging the Jezziah and BJO....
In truth ,however, circa 50% of 2017 Labour and Tory voters will not vote at all next week.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1129386918993641472
With the different polling percentages and number of seats, the picture looks different. The threshold for the first seat starts at just before 10%, but to get a better than evens chance of a seat, you need about 10.5%. The Greens are right on the borderline. BXP are also right on the borderline of a second seat.
Seats will fall as follows:
SNP, BXP, SNP, SNP, LD.
It's then between Green and Brexit for the final seat. That's the whole of the battle in Scotland if that subsample is a reliable indicator of the vote on the day.
SNP can afford to shed about 5 percentage points before they're in danger of losing the third seat. Labour, Change and Conservative should seriously consider lending their vote to whichever out of Green and Brexit they like better (or hate less). Even some SNP and LD voters can afford to switch tactically.
I know what I would do if I lived in Scotland.
> I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
But will they bother to vote?
Since you’re about I have a message for you.
This is a momentous summer of cricket where England have their best chance in 27 years of winning their first World Cup and an Ashes series to follow.
Please no cursing the England team with your praise.
> I guess the more relevant question is whether Brexit party voters are overstating their likelihood to vote proportionately more than other parties. Don't see any particular reason to believe they are.
Well this could be a sampling issue. The people in the sample could be truthfully reporting their likelihood to vote, but if turnout ends up ~35% then the sample won't have been representative of the population.
That seems quite possible given biases like non-response bias. The doubt is whether the sample is representative of the ~35% who will vote. If they are, no problem. If they aren't then perhaps TBP, CUK, etc, are being overstated in the polls and Con, Lab, etc, are being understated - but if it is a duff sample then all sorts of other things could be wrong with it.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
> >
> >
> >
> > Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
> >
> > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref.
>
> You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%.
>
> This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!!
>
> https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
Vote? I doubt if most of them can draw a cross in a box.
It's an odd artefact of the system. If you have 2pp SNP switch to Green, it's a guaranteed extra seat for the not-Brexit side. If 2pp Green switch to SNP, it's likeliest that will be lost. It's tactically asymmetrical.
> I can't see Labour not coming first in London. Their support in places like Newham, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Brent, etc, is too strong.
Sorry, but this is a classic case of not believing the hard data in front of you because it conflicts too much with your perception of what's possible. It's the same thinking that dismissed the chances of Corbyn, Trump and Brexit. Simple question: what are the polls doing wrong?
Labour do not have dyed-in-the-wool core support even in those boroughs, where other parties have in the past won elections against them. It's entirely possible, I'd have thought, that in a secondary election where the public feels that 'sending a message' is more important than who is elected, that Labour support, even in those boroughs, might be far weaker than it was in, say, 2017.
I'd be inclined to believe the polls unless someone can show me where they're methodologically flawed.
> https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1129385454053265409
>
>
>
> Con needs to be a darker blue there
I see even Hanbury Strategies now has TBP ahead.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @williamglenn said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But none of those facts in any way justify comparisons with Hitler. All of the important factors that drove his rise to power and his actions as he made that rise including complete economic collapse, a series of recent armed revolts and an extremist ideology underpinning his party are completely absent today. Making such comparisons even in passing is just idiotic scaremongering.
>
> I said that there was a hint of the Fuehrerprincip about the way Farage operates. And I stand by that, based on those facts. That does not mean that I think he is just like Hitler or that what is happening is exactly like the rise of Hitler or Mussolini.
>
> But there are some worrying echoes which we should pay more careful attention to.
>
> Other echoes:-
>
> There has been a very serious financial crisis, the effects of which have been very long-standing and painful for some people. That in part is one reason why once fringe parties have been able to capture voters’ attention and support.
>
> There have been people on the fringes willing to contemplate violence (and in some cases have used it). You will be well aware of the security services’ concerns about the threat from far right extremists. There is also some evidence that some of these groups and people are supporting Farage and his party, even though he says he does not want their support. I am a tad cynical. It strikes me as about as sincere as when Corbyn says that anti-semites don’t speak in his name but seems otherwise baffled as to why they are attracted to a party he leads. With no structures within the Brexit Party we have absolutely no transparency whether Farage’s words are accompanied by any action.
>
> Farage himself has talked about taking up his rifle. Maybe it was a joke.
>
> Farage has on more than one occasion peddled anti-Semitic tropes. When politicians are happy to do this it is a sign of a growth of a fundamentally illiberal political culture. That bodes very badly for our liberal democracy.
>
> Does he have an extremist ideology? Who knows? Rather contemptuously he refuses to let us know what his party’s policies are. We must just believe in him. This is not the mark of a man who really believes in democracy and scrutiny. IMO.
>
> History rarely repeats itself exactly. But it is complacent not to be concerned about some worrying trends in political life today, which do - however faintly - echo past times when a liberal democratic order and culture was similarly under strain.
+1
> > @david_herdson said:
> > > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > > https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1129372419909660672
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1129372413219758081
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why wouldn’t they be motivated?
> > >
> > > I expect them to be motivated but I think the only time I’ve ever seen turnout exceed self reporting turnout was in the Indyref.
> >
> > You're misremembering. The implied anticipated turnout from the SIndyRef polls was often over 90%.
> >
> > This Survation one, which I've picked because the 7% lead for No was the closest of the late polls to the actual result, even though it was for one of the campaigns, had no less than 93% saying that they were 'certain' to vote! Add in the appropriate partial scores (e.g. a 50% weighting for those saying 5/10 likely), and that increases to an implied turnout of 96.1%!!!
> >
> > https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Better-Together-Voting-Intention-Tables.pdf
>
> How did they find a statistically valid sample for the CUKs?
>
> It is also worth bearing in mind that there are a significantly large number of people who quite legitimately appear on more than 1 electoral register. These intention to vote figures are absurdly high but even if they were borne out turnout would be lower.
True. But the SIndyRef turnout was 84.6%. Some of the discrepancy can be put down to the double-registering factor but not all 10%, by any means.
What a putaway that previous poll of there's was
https://twitter.com/Bennett_Sam/status/1129296300447547392