> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave. > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split. > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party. > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
The older members of the Conservative party, and their voters, presumably followed Health's and Maggie's advice in 1975 and voted For the Common Market. It was Labour who had the most vocal opponents.
I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp.
> Who will be the charismatic leader of the Lib Dems that achieves this?
Good question. I think a gathering of momentum (if you'll pardon the pun) will attract the right person. They may already be out there waiting to get elected.
> Mike would have been right if he'd reversed the descriptions, and said that Con+Lab being under 50% was extraordinary, and four parties being within six points was completely unprecedented. >
No opinion polls, to my knowledge, between the two World Wars, but I think that the 1923 general election saw the closest gap between first and third when 8.3% separated the 1st place Conservatives from the 3rd place Liberals.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave. > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split. > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party. > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
With a Remain majority, those lessons should be applied by Brexiteers.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave. > > > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split. > > > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party. > > > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum > > > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed. > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together.
I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp.
Todays expert on the male physique speaks!
I was thinking exactly the same. Even his photo aged 11 looks just like him now. I wonder how many people actually believed it the NF photo was Farage deep down. It doesnt look anything like him
You promise your child a trip to an Adventure Park if he gets four As in his A levels. You think your kid is a bit thick, so you won't actually need to take him.
He gets four As, spurred on by the thought of the trip to the Adventure Park. You refuse to take him. Adventure Parks are full of stupid rides and without merit, you tell him.
You are then somewhat surprised to find your son has secretly wired a Go-Pro camera in to your bedroom - and his parents' drunken (and frankly, embarrassingly poor) effort at S&M is now available to your friends and neighbours on the web under the title "Stupid Rides".
Potential Morris Dancer Party voters should be aware that I maintain my svelte figure (through the rigorous discipline and healthy exercise of morris dancing). We must be in our prime, for the noble art requires a great deal of fitness, and nothing is more disappointing than a chap who gets too exhausted to wave his wiffle stick halfway through a performance.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
You promise your child a trip to an Adventure Park if he gets four As in his A levels. You think your kid is a bit thick, so you won't actually need to take him.
He gets four As, spurred on by the thought of the trip to the Adventure Park. You refuse to take him. Adventure Parks are full of stupid rides and without merit, you tell him.
You are then somewhat surprised to find your son has secretly wired a Go-Pro camera in to your bedroom - and his parents' drunken (and frankly, embarrassingly poor) effort at S&M is now available to your friends and neighbours on the web under the title "Stupid Rides".
Who says "sorry" and moves on?
Analogies are rather like eggs: the good ones are OK, the others...
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @david_herdson said: > > > Mike would have been right if he'd reversed the descriptions, and said that Con+Lab being under 50% was extraordinary, and four parties being within six points was completely unprecedented. > > > > No opinion polls, to my knowledge, between the two World Wars, but I think that the 1923 general election saw the closest gap between first and third when 8.3% separated the 1st place Conservatives from the 3rd place Liberals.
Cheers.
There've been at least two post-war periods when opinion polls have put the top three parties close. It happened during the 1983-7 parliament (providing you count the SDP and Liberals as one party, which in terms of the choices offered to the electorate they were: it was one or the other in any given place), and then also during the 2010 election campaign.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @isam said: > > https://twitter.com/jmpsimor/status/1130240684647231488 > > You promise your child a trip to an Adventure Park if he gets four As in his A levels. You think your kid is a bit thick, so you won't actually need to take him. > > He gets four As, spurred on by the thought of the trip to the Adventure Park. You refuse to take him. Adventure Parks are full of stupid rides and without merit, you tell him. > > You are then somewhat surprised to find your son has secretly wired a Go-Pro camera in to your bedroom - and his parents' drunken (and frankly, embarrassingly poor) effort at S&M is now available to your friends and neighbours on the web under the title "Stupid Rides". > > Who says "sorry" and moves on?
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Rentool, I'd settle for a wet race. Takes a lot to call an F1 race off. Think Malaysia 2009 was the last occasion, and that took a monsoon.
Japan 2014, though full points were awarded as enough laps had been completed.
I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp.
Todays expert on the male physique speaks!
I was thinking exactly the same. Even his photo aged 11 looks just like him now. I wonder how many people actually believed it the NF photo was Farage deep down. It doesnt look anything like him
Frighteningly, the National Front kid looks very like I did at that age.
(It shouldn't need saying but obviously it isn't me.)
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
Indeed. And regarding the thread header, Labour would do well to remember that many former Labour supporters who vote Brexit in the Euro elections will be far from settled in their voting intentions at the next GE. Going beyond the bounds of credibility by labelling Farage's party as a bunch of "bigots" and "racists", and by implication labelling anyone who votes Brexit as such is not exactly going to encourage those former supporters to return to the fold.
> @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result. > > Indeed. And regarding the thread header, Labour would do well to remember that many former Labour supporters who vote Brexit in the Euro elections will be far from settled in their voting intentions at the next GE. Going beyond the bounds of credibility by labelling Farage's party as a bunch of "bigots" and "racists", and by implication labelling anyone who votes Brexit as such is not exactly going to encourage those former supporters to return to the fold.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result. > > With a Remain majority, those lessons should be applied by Brexiteers.
As far as a softer Brexit goes I agree. The trouble is that too many Remainers are not interested in any form of compromise and simply want the result overturned.
My ballot paper has not made it to Berlin, and even if it arrives tomorrow, I fear it is too late to get it to the council house in time.
P.S. before anyone suggests it is because I registered too late, I have been registered as an overseas voter since I moved here and have voted in all other eligible elections.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Roger, on the other hand, if the pro-EU political class had kept their referendum promise over Lisbon that would've almost certainly been lost, and would've been an opportunity to have an actual moderate position, between leaving entirely and integrating forever.
You could probably make a better case for Maastricht rather than Lisbon being the cause.
> @david_herdson said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question. > > Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
Indeed - and 60% are unlikely to vote at all. I strongly suspect that the longterm significance of these elections is being greatly exaggerated by commentators and the extremists found among the Brexit Party & LibDems- the Local Elections have already been largely forgotten by the public at large.
Labour's strategy of treating the EU elections as being about domestic matters is a brave one, especially when the dominant political topic of the age relates to the EU.
It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
> @dixiedean said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question. > > I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
I might have voted tactically had the evidence for that been clear. As it is, the evidence was ambiguous/possibly towards my most common Euro choice.
The tactical voting sites are in a weird position: - moderately successful in influencing vote then they may get desired outcome (e.g. Yorks & Humber, some LD vote Green to add Green to likely LD MEP) - a bit more successful may give opposite effect (Yorks & Humber lots of LDs switch to Green, Green get an MEP, LD none, Green not enough to get two) - very successful may give desired overall effect but shaft a remain party (Yorks & Humber most LD switch to Green, Green get two MEPs, LD none, LD supporters a bit disgruntled)
Most likely though, I think they'll have minimal effect.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave. > > > > > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split. > > > > > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party. > > > > > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum > > > > > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed. > > > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result. > > The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Labour's strategy of treating the EU elections as being about domestic matters is a brave one, especially when the dominant political topic of the age relates to the EU. > > It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
> @eristdoof said: > My ballot paper has not made it to Berlin, and even if it arrives tomorrow, I fear it is too late to get it to the council house in time. > > > > P.S. before anyone suggests it is because I registered too late, I have been registered as an overseas voter since I moved here and have voted in all other eligible elections.
Mine came nearly a fortnight ago. Kudos to Lewisham Council for efficiency.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @isam said: > > > I think a few people were refusing to believe it wasn’t Farage walking with the National Front in a photo from the 80s the other day... > > > > > > https://twitter.com/louiserawauthor/status/1128757018968363010 > > > > > > Rather unfair, young Nige has at least 2 chins. > > > > I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp. > > > Todays expert on the male physique speaks! > > I was thinking exactly the same. Even his photo aged 11 looks just like him now. I wonder how many people actually believed it the NF photo was Farage deep down. It doesnt look anything like him > > Frighteningly, the National Front kid looks very like I did at that age. > > (It shouldn't need saying but obviously it isn't me.)
Bizarrely - and quite unfairly, I'm sure - it looks a bit like a young Gordon Banks.
> @SandyRentool said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > F1: Twitter reckons there's a 50% chance of rain on Saturday. Race expected to be dry. > > > > Let us hope the forecast worsens. > > So that they call it off?
If it rains, the tip is Lewis Hamilton. If it is dry, the winner is Lewis Hamilton but the tip will be something convoluted involving the virtual safety car getting the fastest lap and a podium finish.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
> @david_herdson said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question. > > Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
There is also the fact that the opinion polls for the Euros are extremely variable* at a national level and generally non-existent in most regions of England. So it is next to impossible to draw any reliable conclusion as to where a tactical vote should be placed, other than that a votes for CHUK or UKIP would clearly be wasted. Siren partisan voices will make other arguments for a tactical vote in their own parties' interests, but they should be ignored.
*For example, in the two most recent polls we have Lab on respectively 24% and 15%. Con at 14% and 9%. LD on 12% and 17%. Green on 4% and 11%.
> @Selebian said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question. > > > > I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day. > > I might have voted tactically had the evidence for that been clear. As it is, the evidence was ambiguous/possibly towards my most common Euro choice. > > The tactical voting sites are in a weird position: > - moderately successful in influencing vote then they may get desired outcome (e.g. Yorks & Humber, some LD vote Green to add Green to likely LD MEP) > - a bit more successful may give opposite effect (Yorks & Humber lots of LDs switch to Green, Green get an MEP, LD none, Green not enough to get two) > - very successful may give desired overall effect but shaft a remain party (Yorks & Humber most LD switch to Green, Green get two MEPs, LD none, LD supporters a bit disgruntled) > > Most likely though, I think they'll have minimal effect.
The only real case for tactical voting is where your party of choice is unlikely to win a seat, and you lend your vote to someone who stands a better chance or has the prospect of adding another seat.
> @dixiedean said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question. > > I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
One of the issues with tactical voting under D'Hondt is that it relies on only the correct number of people voting tactically. If too many people were to do so then all the notions about which seats were "safe" go out the window and people end up with a result they didn't intend (Quite apart from trying to make these calculations in the first place based on imprecise opinion polls).
> @AlastairMeeks said: > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result. > > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
I genuinely don't believe that. I think May's Brexit (as an example) would be accepted by the majority of both Remain and Leave voters as an acceptable compromise even if there are elements of it I personally don't like. I still believe there is a majority in this country to accept the results of the referendum but in such a way that takes into account those who favoured remain. The problem we have is not with the people but the politicians (on both sides).
> @AlastairMeeks said: > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result. > > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave. > > > > > > > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split. > > > > > > > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum > > > > > > > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed. > > > > > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result. > > > > The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together. > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
Yes - you have always been admirably consistent on this. A pity there have not been more like you in power.
> @dixiedean said: > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
> @Cyclefree said: > FPT:- > > > What in Boris’s record suggests that he would be a good PM? > > Was his time as a very senior Cabinet Minister, for instance, marked by any particular successes or achievements?
During his time as Foreign Secretary, he managed to annoy many overseas governments, and was a constant joke here in Germany. Lets say the polite opinion was "why was he given such an important job?".
The UK will really be the laughing stock of western politics if he makes it to PM.
> @dixiedean said: > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
It would be funny if expelling them saw brexiteers chance to lead the party fail.
Both my wife and I are members and voted conservative but will not vote for Boris or Raab
The deal is dead and those tories who continue support it are going to bear the indelible stain of their calumny (except Boris). Pivoting to opposing at least demonstrates that DD understands what the post-May reality is going to be in the party.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @dixiedean said: > > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow. > > It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
How can they prove it anyway - its a secret ballot.
If as is rumoured 2/3 of party members are voting Brexit party they will have quite a lot of admin to expel them all - and no activists left either to fight future elections.
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
I genuinely don't believe that. I think May's Brexit (as an example) would be accepted by the majority of both Remain and Leave voters as an acceptable compromise even if there are elements of it I personally don't like. I still believe there is a majority in this country to accept the results of the referendum but in such a way that takes into account those who favoured remain. The problem we have is not with the people but the politicians (on both sides).
I agree, but if parliament won’t pass it, and given how outrageous it would be to put her up Deal vs Remain in a second referendum, what can we do?
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Labour's strategy of treating the EU elections as being about domestic matters is a brave one, especially when the dominant political topic of the age relates to the EU. > > It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
I’ve been amazed that no party had moved to revoke until this weekend when CHUK panicked. I’m amazed that Labour are still on the fence - they seem to be realising this week that leavers are leaving and it being overtly Remain allows other remain parties to say they are Pro Brexit
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
Nice of Gordon to think about £5 donations when during his time in office he got us into over £1 trillion of extra national debt! Our grandkids will have to pay that back - he won't!
Now that would be worthy of a real investigation - holding those accountable for reckless financial management!
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @dixiedean said: > > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow. > > It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
> > F1: Twitter reckons there's a 50% chance of rain on Saturday. Race expected to be dry.
> >
> > Let us hope the forecast worsens.
>
> So that they call it off?
If it rains, the tip is Lewis Hamilton. If it is dry, the winner is Lewis Hamilton but the tip will be something convoluted involving the virtual safety car getting the fastest lap and a podium finish.
F1 is arguably the only sport that requires awful weather to make it bearably entertaining. You would think its nerdy petrolhead fans would click and demand better circuits and more competitive regulations but no, they still shuffle their fingers over body parts and do rain dances instead.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
Isn’t that the concept of compromise though? It’s nobody’s first choice but people can live with it.
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
> @eristdoof said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > FPT:- > > > > > > What in Boris’s record suggests that he would be a good PM? > > > > Was his time as a very senior Cabinet Minister, for instance, marked by any particular successes or achievements? > > During his time as Foreign Secretary, he managed to annoy many overseas governments, and was a constant joke here in Germany. Lets say the polite opinion was "why was he given such an important job?". > > The UK will really be the laughing stock of western politics if he makes it to PM.
This is the real issue with Boris.
It is not whether he is an opportunist or duplicitous. Those descriptions apply to most politicians to some degree. It is not that he is a Leave supporter. For many like me that would be an asset not a hindrance.
In the end the real problem is he has an almost unique combination of laziness and incompetence which makes him utterly unsuited for any high (or perhaps even low) office. He would be a real disaster for this country if he actually got to be PM. Just as much as Corbyn but in a different way.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
Isn’t that the concept of compromise though? It’s nobody’s first choice but people can live with it.
You need the second half as well as the first half.
TM needs to go now and let the contest begin. There is no point in continuing this farce. I have been a loyal supporter of TM, and do consider she achieved the best brexit possible and time may well show that to be the case
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
Isn’t that the concept of compromise though? It’s nobody’s first choice but people can live with it.
You need the second half as well as the first half.
I reckon a majority of Britons could happily live with a Tyndallite solution.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result. > > > > > > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with. > > > > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result. > > > > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two. > > It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country. > > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time. > > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner. > > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
Quite.
The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above.
What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power.
The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
Isn’t that the concept of compromise though? It’s nobody’s first choice but people can live with it.
You need the second half as well as the first half.
I reckon a majority of Britons could happily live with a Tyndallite solution.
I'm afraid I looked at the words "We can't let bigots win" and immediately thought it was saying: 'Don't vote Labour because it is open to anti-Semites and supports leaders like Gordon Brown who thinks that ordinary people are bigots.'
On examination I could see that the villainous faces were not villainous Labour but villainous something elses and then I couldn't work out who to vote for. LibDem perhaps?
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The Leave side made a tactical mistake in allowing Remainers to frame the argument as being purely between "Deal" and "No Deal" at only the point of leaving, with the latter having negative connotations by implication.
The issue is more a medium and long term one, namely whether the EU would be willing to offer better or worse terms to the UK before or after we left. So it is not a matter of whether we agree a trade deal but when we agree it.
The EU has from the outset correctly judged that May was desperate for an agreement before the UK left and would agree to just about anything they put up. They also correctly judged that, in the absence of a government willing to take them on, playing hardball would drive opinion in the UK towards their preferred outcome all along, which is that the UK government should seek to revoke their decision. In those circumstances, they were never going to offer us anything worth having while the question of whether we would leave was undecided.
May's so called "Deal" is not even that, since it essentially leaves most points of detail undecided, while forcing the UK to give up all our cards and dealing the EU a new Ace of Spades in the form of an agreed backstop arrangement.
On the other hand, were the UK to leave on temporary WTO terms, those malign motivations on the part of the EU would be gone, the UK would have demonstrated that it too could play hardball, and both parties could then sit down and negotiate something of mutual interest without the UK being constrained by any prior agreement. The interests of EU states in seeking to preserve the EU's huge trade surplus in goods with the UK and the huge EU budget deficit arising from the loss of UK contributions should help focus the mind. I think a balanced agreement of mutual benefit could be reached within months if not weeks.
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
Cameron called the referendum, and was standing down before the next GE. He had the perfect conditions to deliver a compromise deal
> @algarkirk said: > I'm afraid I looked at the words "We can't let bigots win" and immediately thought it was saying: 'Don't vote Labour because it is open to anti-Semites and supports leaders like Gordon Brown who thinks that ordinary people are bigots.' > > On examination I could see that the villainous faces were not villainous Labour but villainous something elses and then I couldn't work out who to vote for. LibDem perhaps? -------------------------- Yes, I was puzzled not to see Corbyn's picture on there.
The interests of EU states in seeking to preserve the EU's huge trade surplus in goods with the UK and the huge EU budget deficit arising from the loss of UK contributions should help focus the mind.
Even now, "they need us more than we need them" lives on...
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
Cameron called the referendum, and was standing down before the next GE. He had the perfect conditions to deliver a compromise deal
If David Cameron hadn't resigned, he would have faced a no confidence vote within days. And in the unlikely event that he survived that, he would have had absolutely no authority to negotiate again with the EU, having already done so once and not been able to deliver.
I was not one of those who jumped on the issue raised by the Cadwallader tweet yesterday.
I am curious about why Brussels should be buzzing with rumours about Farage receiving payments of £5.00 via Paypal in the absence of anything more.
From what I have read, the bigger issue from the Brussels perspective (i.e. whether there has been a breach of the rules) is whether Farage properly declared the sums received from Arron Banks in the year or so after the 2016 referendum.
> @Scott_P said: > The interests of EU states in seeking to preserve the EU's huge trade surplus in goods with the UK and the huge EU budget deficit arising from the loss of UK contributions should help focus the mind. > > Even now, "they need us more than we need them" lives on... > > It's tragic.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal n the result. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with , no matter what Britain ends up with. > > > > > > > > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result. > > > > > > > > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two. > > > > It was not inevitable but it wase country. > > > > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time. > > > > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner. > > > > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame. > > Quite. > > The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above. > > What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power. > > The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
Is it ?
Ive been mulling at the state of the economy which rolls on despite the uncertainty, on balance imo there is now more upside than there is downside whichever direction we go in, it;s the uncertainty holding things back.
Ive equally been considering that if the economy rolls on, do I really want MPs who have such poor decision making abilities back dabbling in the day to day of life. At some point we will need a government to set a direction but short term I wouldnt want this cohort anywhere near my well being, we appear to be doing just fine without them.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @tlg86 said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1130433763173896193 > > > > > > Is there some suggestion that the two are linked? > > > > You wish. > > No. I was asking a genuine question. > > I was not one of those who jumped on the issue raised by the Cadwallader tweet yesterday. > > I am curious about why Brussels should be buzzing with rumours about Farage receiving payments of £5.00 via Paypal in the absence of anything more. > > From what I have read, the bigger issue from the Brussels perspective (i.e. whether there has been a breach of the rules) is whether Farage properly declared the sums received from Arron Banks in the year or so after the 2016 referendum. > >
It's a classic smear. Mention two "scandals" in the same breath and hope people think the two are connected and if they don't think that at least people might think that they are of the same seriousness.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with. > > > > > > > > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result. > > > > > > > > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two. > > > > It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country. > > > > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time. > > > > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner. > > > > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame. > > Quite. > > The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above. > > What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power. > > The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
When did De Valera turn on his supporters? At the beginning of his presidency Ireland was still a Free State dominion with the British monarch as Head of State, by the end of his presidency Ireland was an independent Republic and not even in the Commonwealth.
Collins may have been a Mayite, De Valera was a hard Brexiteer
> @Alanbrooke said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal n the result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with , no matter what Britain ends up with. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result. > > > > > > > > > > > > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two. > > > > > > It was not inevitable but it wase country. > > > > > > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time. > > > > > > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner. > > > > > > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame. > > > > Quite. > > > > The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above. > > > > What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power. > > > > The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result. > > Is it ? > > Ive been mulling at the state of the economy which rolls on despite the uncertainty, on balance imo there is now more upside than there is downside whichever direction we go in, it;s the uncertainty holding things back. > > Ive equally been considering that if the economy rolls on, do I really want MPs who have such poor decision making abilities back dabbling in the day to day of life. At some point we will need a government to set a direction but short term I wouldnt want this cohort anywhere near my well being, we appear to be doing just fine without them.
That is a very Italian view. Get on with life and ignore the politicians. There is much to be said for it when we have muppets notionally in charge.
But there are the things which ought to be done - but aren't being - which is what will harm the country. All those problems/issues being ignored which will later blow up in our faces.
It's a classic smear. Mention two "scandals" in the same breath and hope people think the two are connected and if they don't think that at least people might think that they are of the same seriousness.
Paranoid much?
It's a journalist reporting what is being talked about in Brussels.
If she had said "party funding and Game of Thrones" would you have got your knickers in such a twist?
Comments
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave.
> >
> > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split.
> >
> > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party.
> >
> > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
>
> I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
The older members of the Conservative party, and their voters, presumably followed Health's and Maggie's advice in 1975 and voted For the Common Market.
It was Labour who had the most vocal opponents.
> Is it particularly wise of Clegg and Alexander to remind people of the coalition years a few days before an election?
George looks like he's off the 5 2 diet !
> I think a few people were refusing to believe it wasn’t Farage walking with the National Front in a photo from the 80s the other day...
>
> https://twitter.com/louiserawauthor/status/1128757018968363010
Rather unfair, young Nige has at least 2 chins.
I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp.
> Who will be the charismatic leader of the Lib Dems that achieves this?
Good question. I think a gathering of momentum (if you'll pardon the pun) will attract the right person. They may already be out there waiting to get elected.
> Mike would have been right if he'd reversed the descriptions, and said that Con+Lab being under 50% was extraordinary, and four parties being within six points was completely unprecedented.
>
No opinion polls, to my knowledge, between the two World Wars, but I think that the 1923 general election saw the closest gap between first and third when 8.3% separated the 1st place Conservatives from the 3rd place Liberals.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave.
> >
> > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split.
> >
> > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party.
> >
> > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
>
> I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
>
> Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
With a Remain majority, those lessons should be applied by Brexiteers.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave.
> > >
> > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split.
> > >
> > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party.
> > >
> > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
> >
> > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
>
> Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together.
Todays expert on the male physique speaks!
I was thinking exactly the same. Even his photo aged 11 looks just like him now. I wonder how many people actually believed it the NF photo was Farage deep down. It doesnt look anything like him
> https://twitter.com/jmpsimor/status/1130240684647231488
You promise your child a trip to an Adventure Park if he gets four As in his A levels. You think your kid is a bit thick, so you won't actually need to take him.
He gets four As, spurred on by the thought of the trip to the Adventure Park. You refuse to take him. Adventure Parks are full of stupid rides and without merit, you tell him.
You are then somewhat surprised to find your son has secretly wired a Go-Pro camera in to your bedroom - and his parents' drunken (and frankly, embarrassingly poor) effort at S&M is now available to your friends and neighbours on the web under the title "Stupid Rides".
Who says "sorry" and moves on?
> Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
> Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
Let us hope the forecast worsens.
> Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
Chap I sit next to is doing so - for the Greens.
> > @david_herdson said:
>
> > Mike would have been right if he'd reversed the descriptions, and said that Con+Lab being under 50% was extraordinary, and four parties being within six points was completely unprecedented.
> >
>
> No opinion polls, to my knowledge, between the two World Wars, but I think that the 1923 general election saw the closest gap between first and third when 8.3% separated the 1st place Conservatives from the 3rd place Liberals.
Cheers.
There've been at least two post-war periods when opinion polls have put the top three parties close. It happened during the 1983-7 parliament (providing you count the SDP and Liberals as one party, which in terms of the choices offered to the electorate they were: it was one or the other in any given place), and then also during the 2010 election campaign.
> F1: Twitter reckons there's a 50% chance of rain on Saturday. Race expected to be dry.
>
> Let us hope the forecast worsens.
So that they call it off?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/may/20/brexit-latest-news-developments-may-fresh-bid-to-get-tories-to-back-brexit-bill-faltering-as-david-davis-says-hes-now-voting-against-live-news
> > @isam said:
> > https://twitter.com/jmpsimor/status/1130240684647231488
>
> You promise your child a trip to an Adventure Park if he gets four As in his A levels. You think your kid is a bit thick, so you won't actually need to take him.
>
> He gets four As, spurred on by the thought of the trip to the Adventure Park. You refuse to take him. Adventure Parks are full of stupid rides and without merit, you tell him.
>
> You are then somewhat surprised to find your son has secretly wired a Go-Pro camera in to your bedroom - and his parents' drunken (and frankly, embarrassingly poor) effort at S&M is now available to your friends and neighbours on the web under the title "Stupid Rides".
>
> Who says "sorry" and moves on?
What on earth made you think of that analogy?
> Mr. Rentool, I'd settle for a wet race. Takes a lot to call an F1 race off. Think Malaysia 2009 was the last occasion, and that took a monsoon.
Japan 2014, though full points were awarded as enough laps had been completed.
(It shouldn't need saying but obviously it isn't me.)
>
> Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
Indeed. And regarding the thread header, Labour would do well to remember that many former Labour supporters who vote Brexit in the Euro elections will be far from settled in their voting intentions at the next GE. Going beyond the bounds of credibility by labelling Farage's party as a bunch of "bigots" and "racists", and by implication labelling anyone who votes Brexit as such is not exactly going to encourage those former supporters to return to the fold.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
>
> Indeed. And regarding the thread header, Labour would do well to remember that many former Labour supporters who vote Brexit in the Euro elections will be far from settled in their voting intentions at the next GE. Going beyond the bounds of credibility by labelling Farage's party as a bunch of "bigots" and "racists", and by implication labelling anyone who votes Brexit as such is not exactly going to encourage those former supporters to return to the fold.
Habits, once broken can be hard to re-establish!
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
>
> With a Remain majority, those lessons should be applied by Brexiteers.
As far as a softer Brexit goes I agree. The trouble is that too many Remainers are not interested in any form of compromise and simply want the result overturned.
P.S. before anyone suggests it is because I registered too late, I have been registered as an overseas voter since I moved here and have voted in all other eligible elections.
> Mr. Roger, on the other hand, if the pro-EU political class had kept their referendum promise over Lisbon that would've almost certainly been lost, and would've been an opportunity to have an actual moderate position, between leaving entirely and integrating forever.
You could probably make a better case for Maastricht rather than Lisbon being the cause.
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
>
> Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
Indeed - and 60% are unlikely to vote at all. I strongly suspect that the longterm significance of these elections is being greatly exaggerated by commentators and the extremists found among the Brexit Party & LibDems- the Local Elections have already been largely forgotten by the public at large.
It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
>
> I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
I might have voted tactically had the evidence for that been clear. As it is, the evidence was ambiguous/possibly towards my most common Euro choice.
The tactical voting sites are in a weird position:
- moderately successful in influencing vote then they may get desired outcome (e.g. Yorks & Humber, some LD vote Green to add Green to likely LD MEP)
- a bit more successful may give opposite effect (Yorks & Humber lots of LDs switch to Green, Green get an MEP, LD none, Green not enough to get two)
- very successful may give desired overall effect but shaft a remain party (Yorks & Humber most LD switch to Green, Green get two MEPs, LD none, LD supporters a bit disgruntled)
Most likely though, I think they'll have minimal effect.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave.
> > > >
> > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split.
> > > >
> > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
> > >
> > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
> >
> > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
>
> The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together.
I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
> Labour's strategy of treating the EU elections as being about domestic matters is a brave one, especially when the dominant political topic of the age relates to the EU.
>
> It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
What a good idea.
> My ballot paper has not made it to Berlin, and even if it arrives tomorrow, I fear it is too late to get it to the council house in time.
>
>
>
> P.S. before anyone suggests it is because I registered too late, I have been registered as an overseas voter since I moved here and have voted in all other eligible elections.
Mine came nearly a fortnight ago. Kudos to Lewisham Council for efficiency.
> > @isam said:
>
> > I think a few people were refusing to believe it wasn’t Farage walking with the National Front in a photo from the 80s the other day...
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/louiserawauthor/status/1128757018968363010
>
>
>
>
>
> Rather unfair, young Nige has at least 2 chins.
>
>
>
> I actually find it slightly amazing that he looks almost exactly the same at 18 as he does in his 40 a day, beer (though probably claret) swilling pomp.
>
>
> Todays expert on the male physique speaks!
>
> I was thinking exactly the same. Even his photo aged 11 looks just like him now. I wonder how many people actually believed it the NF photo was Farage deep down. It doesnt look anything like him
>
> Frighteningly, the National Front kid looks very like I did at that age.
>
> (It shouldn't need saying but obviously it isn't me.)
Bizarrely - and quite unfairly, I'm sure - it looks a bit like a young Gordon Banks.
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > F1: Twitter reckons there's a 50% chance of rain on Saturday. Race expected to be dry.
> >
> > Let us hope the forecast worsens.
>
> So that they call it off?
If it rains, the tip is Lewis Hamilton. If it is dry, the winner is Lewis Hamilton but the tip will be something convoluted involving the virtual safety car getting the fastest lap and a podium finish.
> Some moob action. These lads look like they've put austerity behind them.
>
>
These "lads" have never had to live with the consequences of austerity.
> David Davis flips back against the deal.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/may/20/brexit-latest-news-developments-may-fresh-bid-to-get-tories-to-back-brexit-bill-faltering-as-david-davis-says-hes-now-voting-against-live-news
TM charm offensive in full swing I see.
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
>
> Hardly any, I'd have thought. Most people don't take the EP elections seriously anyway, in terms of who gets elected, never mind who doesn't. It's primarily about expressing support for a party or a broad policy. How that translates into MEPs tends to be a very secondary consideration.
There is also the fact that the opinion polls for the Euros are extremely variable* at a national level and generally non-existent in most regions of England. So it is next to impossible to draw any reliable conclusion as to where a tactical vote should be placed, other than that a votes for CHUK or UKIP would clearly be wasted. Siren partisan voices will make other arguments for a tactical vote in their own parties' interests, but they should be ignored.
*For example, in the two most recent polls we have Lab on respectively 24% and 15%. Con at 14% and 9%. LD on 12% and 17%. Green on 4% and 11%.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
> >
> > I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
>
> I might have voted tactically had the evidence for that been clear. As it is, the evidence was ambiguous/possibly towards my most common Euro choice.
>
> The tactical voting sites are in a weird position:
> - moderately successful in influencing vote then they may get desired outcome (e.g. Yorks & Humber, some LD vote Green to add Green to likely LD MEP)
> - a bit more successful may give opposite effect (Yorks & Humber lots of LDs switch to Green, Green get an MEP, LD none, Green not enough to get two)
> - very successful may give desired overall effect but shaft a remain party (Yorks & Humber most LD switch to Green, Green get two MEPs, LD none, LD supporters a bit disgruntled)
>
> Most likely though, I think they'll have minimal effect.
The only real case for tactical voting is where your party of choice is unlikely to win a seat, and you lend your vote to someone who stands a better chance or has the prospect of adding another seat.
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > Hi Mike, would people actually vote tactically with d'Hondt? Genuine question.
>
> I am. Not sure how many others would, or have the information to be able to do so. I am voting tactically based on a guess really in my region. And am becoming less sure with every passing day.
One of the issues with tactical voting under D'Hondt is that it relies on only the correct number of people voting tactically. If too many people were to do so then all the notions about which seats were "safe" go out the window and people end up with a result they didn't intend (Quite apart from trying to make these calculations in the first place based on imprecise opinion polls).
https://twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1130429425483431937
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
I genuinely don't believe that. I think May's Brexit (as an example) would be accepted by the majority of both Remain and Leave voters as an acceptable compromise even if there are elements of it I personally don't like. I still believe there is a majority in this country to accept the results of the referendum but in such a way that takes into account those who favoured remain. The problem we have is not with the people but the politicians (on both sides).
> Gordon's done a funny.
>
> https://twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1130429425483431937
That's a funny funny too. Remarkable.
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > > With respect to the John Harris article linked to on the previous thread, it's interesting to go back to the Ipsos Mori post-referendum "How Britain Voted" opinion poll. This had Conservative voters at the 2015 general election voting Remain 41% - 59% Leave.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have become used to thinking of Conservative voters as being almost monolithically Leave supporting, with only a small proportion of Remain holdouts, but the last electoral coalition to win the Conservatives a Commons majority was much more evenly split.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a lot of voters who could be open to voting for a rejuvenated Liberal Democrat Party.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
> > > >
> > > > I will be voting LibDem on Thursday, and encouraging anyone I can to do so. The Conservative Party has a tin ear, like its current leader. It needs a message that ignoring a large part of your electorate, and continuously insulting them, even though they might be a minority, is foolish indeed.
> > >
> > > Surely ignoring a large part of your electorate and continuously insulting them when they are a majority is even more foolish. Indeed that is in part what led to the vote to Leave in the first place and it seems that the Remain side have learnt non of the lessons of that result.
> >
> > The thing is Richard is that the Leave side won the referendum by a small margin. There are those that now claim this entitles them to push a "No Deal". That was not promoted. Quite the converse. I could live with a soft Brexit as a representation of that result. No Deal is madness and in no way brings the country back together.
>
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
Yes - you have always been admirably consistent on this. A pity there have not been more like you in power.
> Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
> FPT:-
>
>
> What in Boris’s record suggests that he would be a good PM?
>
> Was his time as a very senior Cabinet Minister, for instance, marked by any particular successes or achievements?
During his time as Foreign Secretary, he managed to annoy many overseas governments, and was a constant joke here in Germany. Lets say the polite opinion was "why was he given such an important job?".
The UK will really be the laughing stock of western politics if he makes it to PM.
> Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
It would be funny if expelling them saw brexiteers chance to lead the party fail.
Both my wife and I are members and voted conservative but will not vote for Boris or Raab
> > @dixiedean said:
> > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
>
> It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
How can they prove it anyway - its a secret ballot.
If as is rumoured 2/3 of party members are voting Brexit party they will have quite a lot of admin to expel them all - and no activists left either to fight future elections.
> Labour's strategy of treating the EU elections as being about domestic matters is a brave one, especially when the dominant political topic of the age relates to the EU.
>
> It's an amazing election. Should we have some form of sweepstake on vote shares?
I’ve been amazed that no party had moved to revoke until this weekend when CHUK panicked. I’m amazed that Labour are still on the fence - they seem to be realising this week that leavers are leaving and it being overtly Remain allows other remain parties to say they are Pro Brexit
Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
> Gordon's done a funny.
>
> https://twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1130429425483431937
Nice of Gordon to think about £5 donations when during his time in office he got us into over £1 trillion of extra national debt! Our grandkids will have to pay that back - he won't!
Now that would be worthy of a real investigation - holding those accountable for reckless financial management!
> Gordon's done a funny.
>
> https://twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1130429425483431937
That would have been a better gag coming from Michael Howard
> > @dixiedean said:
> > Andrew Bridgen calling for all Tory members voting for another Party to be expelled. Not sure that will help with their cash flow.
>
> It will save on stamps when they send out next year's membership cards.
Indeed. Number of Members = nil
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48335109?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social
Isn’t that the concept of compromise though? It’s nobody’s first choice but people can live with it.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > FPT:-
> >
> >
> > What in Boris’s record suggests that he would be a good PM?
> >
> > Was his time as a very senior Cabinet Minister, for instance, marked by any particular successes or achievements?
>
> During his time as Foreign Secretary, he managed to annoy many overseas governments, and was a constant joke here in Germany. Lets say the polite opinion was "why was he given such an important job?".
>
> The UK will really be the laughing stock of western politics if he makes it to PM.
This is the real issue with Boris.
It is not whether he is an opportunist or duplicitous. Those descriptions apply to most politicians to some degree.
It is not that he is a Leave supporter. For many like me that would be an asset not a hindrance.
In the end the real problem is he has an almost unique combination of laziness and incompetence which makes him utterly unsuited for any high (or perhaps even low) office. He would be a real disaster for this country if he actually got to be PM. Just as much as Corbyn but in a different way.
> More Conservative leadership manoeuvres:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48335109?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social
TM needs to go now and let the contest begin. There is no point in continuing this farce. I have been a loyal supporter of TM, and do consider she achieved the best brexit possible and time may well show that to be the case
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
>
> >
>
> > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
>
>
>
> It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
>
>
>
> I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
>
> It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
>
> Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
>
> Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
>
> No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
Quite.
The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above.
What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power.
The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
> https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1130433763173896193
Is there some suggestion that the two are linked?
On examination I could see that the villainous faces were not villainous Labour but villainous something elses and then I couldn't work out who to vote for. LibDem perhaps?
>
> I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
The Leave side made a tactical mistake in allowing Remainers to frame the argument as being purely between "Deal" and "No Deal" at only the point of leaving, with the latter having negative connotations by implication.
The issue is more a medium and long term one, namely whether the EU would be willing to offer better or worse terms to the UK before or after we left. So it is not a matter of whether we agree a trade deal but when we agree it.
The EU has from the outset correctly judged that May was desperate for an agreement before the UK left and would agree to just about anything they put up. They also correctly judged that, in the absence of a government willing to take them on, playing hardball would drive opinion in the UK towards their preferred outcome all along, which is that the UK government should seek to revoke their decision. In those circumstances, they were never going to offer us anything worth having while the question of whether we would leave was undecided.
May's so called "Deal" is not even that, since it essentially leaves most points of detail undecided, while forcing the UK to give up all our cards and dealing the EU a new Ace of Spades in the form of an agreed backstop arrangement.
On the other hand, were the UK to leave on temporary WTO terms, those malign motivations on the part of the EU would be gone, the UK would have demonstrated that it too could play hardball, and both parties could then sit down and negotiate something of mutual interest without the UK being constrained by any prior agreement. The interests of EU states in seeking to preserve the EU's huge trade surplus in goods with the UK and the huge EU budget deficit arising from the loss of UK contributions should help focus the mind. I think a balanced agreement of mutual benefit could be reached within months if not weeks.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1130433763173896193
>
> Is there some suggestion that the two are linked?
You wish.
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1130417820653752320?s=21
> I'm afraid I looked at the words "We can't let bigots win" and immediately thought it was saying: 'Don't vote Labour because it is open to anti-Semites and supports leaders like Gordon Brown who thinks that ordinary people are bigots.'
>
> On examination I could see that the villainous faces were not villainous Labour but villainous something elses and then I couldn't work out who to vote for. LibDem perhaps?
--------------------------
Yes, I was puzzled not to see Corbyn's picture on there.
It's tragic.
His resignation was a recognition of reality.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1130433763173896193
> >
> > Is there some suggestion that the two are linked?
>
> You wish.
No. I was asking a genuine question.
I was not one of those who jumped on the issue raised by the Cadwallader tweet yesterday.
I am curious about why Brussels should be buzzing with rumours about Farage receiving payments of £5.00 via Paypal in the absence of anything more.
From what I have read, the bigger issue from the Brussels perspective (i.e. whether there has been a breach of the rules) is whether Farage properly declared the sums received from Arron Banks in the year or so after the 2016 referendum.
> The interests of EU states in seeking to preserve the EU's huge trade surplus in goods with the UK and the huge EU budget deficit arising from the loss of UK contributions should help focus the mind.
>
> Even now, "they need us more than we need them" lives on...
>
> It's tragic.
Condescending twat.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> >
> > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal n the result.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The problem with , no matter what Britain ends up with.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
> >
> >
> >
> > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
> >
> > It was not inevitable but it wase country.
> >
> > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
> >
> > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
> >
> > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
>
> Quite.
>
> The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above.
>
> What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power.
>
> The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
Is it ?
Ive been mulling at the state of the economy which rolls on despite the uncertainty, on balance imo there is now more upside than there is downside whichever direction we go in, it;s the uncertainty holding things back.
Ive equally been considering that if the economy rolls on, do I really want MPs who have such poor decision making abilities back dabbling in the day to day of life. At some point we will need a government to set a direction but short term I wouldnt want this cohort anywhere near my well being, we appear to be doing just fine without them.
> > @tlg86 said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1130433763173896193
> > >
> > > Is there some suggestion that the two are linked?
> >
> > You wish.
>
> No. I was asking a genuine question.
>
> I was not one of those who jumped on the issue raised by the Cadwallader tweet yesterday.
>
> I am curious about why Brussels should be buzzing with rumours about Farage receiving payments of £5.00 via Paypal in the absence of anything more.
>
> From what I have read, the bigger issue from the Brussels perspective (i.e. whether there has been a breach of the rules) is whether Farage properly declared the sums received from Arron Banks in the year or so after the 2016 referendum.
>
>
It's a classic smear. Mention two "scandals" in the same breath and hope people think the two are connected and if they don't think that at least people might think that they are of the same seriousness.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> >
> > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal question. I have argued from the day of eth referendum that we need to take into account the views of ALL of the electorate not just those who 'won'. Of course that is easy for me to say as I always preferred the softer Brexit. I view the No Deal advocates in Parliament in the same way I view those who say we should overturn the result.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The problem with your view (and I respect it) is that very few people actually want a soft Brexit and the only people advocating such a compromise are, surprise surprise, the people who want it. It would command no legitimacy in reality. Every outcome is going to be detested by a majority now, no matter what Britain ends up with.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
> >
> >
> >
> > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
> >
> > It was not inevitable but it was always possible. To be avoided, Britain needed leadership that sought genuinely to bring people together, that sought to identify the key features to respect the referendum result and then identify the compromises that would entail, to be inclusive of all strains of political views and then to sell that approach to the country.
> >
> > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
> >
> > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
> >
> > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
>
> Quite.
>
> The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above.
>
> What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power.
>
> The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
When did De Valera turn on his supporters? At the beginning of his presidency Ireland was still a Free State dominion with the British monarch as Head of State, by the end of his presidency Ireland was an independent Republic and not even in the Commonwealth.
Collins may have been a Mayite, De Valera was a hard Brexiteer
> https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1130438404716601345
Probably the Brexit Party and Plaid in front?
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > >
> > > > I don't at all disagree about the No Deal n the result.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The problem with , no matter what Britain ends up with.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an interesting question as to whether this was always inevitable - all revolutions usually end up giving power to those on the extremes - or a consequence of the actions taken by various players in response to the result.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I tended to think the latter but now feel the former. Or maybe, soggy Lib Dem-ish person that I am, it's a mixture of the two.
> > >
> > > It was not inevitable but it wase country.
> > >
> > > Instead Britain got Theresa May, "citizens of nowhere", "enemies of the people", assaults on every civic institution in Britain and "no deal is better than a bad deal". Theresa May has a very bad reputation now. It is not going to improve with time.
> > >
> > > Cameron’s fault for doing a runner.
> > >
> > > No, Theresa May and prominent Leavers who sought to turn Brexit into a closed order cult must take the lion's share of the blame.
> >
> > Quite.
> >
> > The fact that the leadership contenders felt the need to make themselves as attractive as possible to the most ardent Brexiteers made it impossible (or very hard) for them, once in power, to do what you outline above.
> >
> > What Britain needed was a De Valera sort of politician - one who used his hardline supporters to gain power and then ruthlessly turned on them when in power.
> >
> > The needs of the Tory party were - and still are - at odds with the needs of the country. The country is suffering as a result.
>
> Is it ?
>
> Ive been mulling at the state of the economy which rolls on despite the uncertainty, on balance imo there is now more upside than there is downside whichever direction we go in, it;s the uncertainty holding things back.
>
> Ive equally been considering that if the economy rolls on, do I really want MPs who have such poor decision making abilities back dabbling in the day to day of life. At some point we will need a government to set a direction but short term I wouldnt want this cohort anywhere near my well being, we appear to be doing just fine without them.
That is a very Italian view. Get on with life and ignore the politicians. There is much to be said for it when we have muppets notionally in charge.
But there are the things which ought to be done - but aren't being - which is what will harm the country. All those problems/issues being ignored which will later blow up in our faces.
It's a journalist reporting what is being talked about in Brussels.
If she had said "party funding and Game of Thrones" would you have got your knickers in such a twist?
> https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1130438404716601345
Is it presented through the medium of dance?