> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
> @DavidL said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > > > > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else? > > > > Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth? > > Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
Equally they were elected on their party's manifesto and to follow the whip of the party they were elected to represent. Both those items override voting for a deal that was perceived to not be good enough.
> @eek said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @kle4 said: > > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness". > > > > > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are. > > > > I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy. > > Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.. > > And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
> @DavidL said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > > > > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else? > > > > Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth? > > Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
The loons, as you put it, make up an absolute majority of Leavers. There’s no point implementing a deal that commands no legitimacy.
It turns out that Leavers’ instincts were entirely negative and they had no positive vision. Who could have guessed?
As for what next, neither Revoke nor No Deal have any democratic legitimacy, the first because it was defeated last time round and the second because every prominent Leaver disavowed it as a possibility in the referendum campaign. But they are now the only two practicable options. So they should be put to a referendum.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. eek, a political situation this polarised and bitter is a problem for everyone.
Yes - my point is that you can't expect others to solve your problem for you.
DavidL is expecting that in the case of No Deal the EU will drop everything to help us out but why should they. Equally why should a Labour MP defy their party whip to vote for a deal even their constituents don't like.
While the more I think about it the more a lot of these things are May's fault (she may be leaping ahead of Cameron as worst PM ever but it's a close run thing) the idea that other people MUST solve your problems for you isn't a sane assumption.
> @DavidL said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Because the leavers who had also promised to honour the result said the deal was dreadful and damaging, and voted it down?
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > Jeremy Hunt has done a great service to the leadership race by putting no deal at the heart of the candidates debate and it needs a plausable response from the other candidates and not the asinine response by McVey that we no deal on the 31st October > > To be fair McVey is not going to win the race and can get away with her vote losing strategy, but other candidates must understand that without a serious response their premiership could last, at best, just a few weeks > > And as for Malthouse assertion he will reopen the WDA and sort out the backstop is for the birds
Is Malthouse going to run on the Malthouse Compromise?
> @eek said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. eek, a political situation this polarised and bitter is a problem for everyone. > > Yes - my point is that you can't expect others to solve your problem for you. > > DavidL is expecting that in the case of No Deal the EU will drop everything to help us out but why should they. > Equally why should a Labour MP defy their party whip to vote for a deal even their constituents don't like. > > While the more I think about it the more a lot of these things are May's fault (she may be leaping ahead of Cameron as worst PM ever but it's a close run thing) the idea that other people MUST solve your problems for you isn't a sane assumption.
What we need is a PM with the same ability as DavidL to make any problem simply disappear by making a few glib assumptions.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas. > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
> @DavidL said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding. > > > > It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won? > > > > If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view > > There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
I think we all know that alternative is not going to fly so we need to file it away with the other unicorns, along with the notion that the EU will reopen negotiations with Johnson or whoever to help them out.
It will come down to No Deal or Revoke and there needs to be a second vote to give either of those options a mandate because neither have one as we stand.
"Remain put forward their arguments [and lost]. They must embrace Leave!" "The Labour Party put Leave in its manifesto [and lost]. They must honour that manifesto!"
> Mr. Meeks, both sides are very willing for their adversaries to compromise. And it's jolly unfair they haven't.
So far Leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless about what Leave entailed. Asking Remainers to sort it out for them is a bit rich.
It’s easy to whine about what you don’t like. Accepting that life is not just black and white and compromises are sometimes necessary seems anathema to some.
You can look as this two ways: what is the right thing to do, and what will help win the immediate leadership contest.
The first is not in any doubt: no deal is a disaster in its own right, and would consign the Tories to oblivion for a decade at least. No serious candidate could support it. Even in short-term electoral terms it makes zero sense; you can't out-Farage Farage, and whatever you do you are going to be accused of betrayal by the ERG loons and the Brexit Party.
Even more stupid for a new leader than suggesting no deal is a realistic and desirable option is to tie yourself into the Oct 31st deadline: that really is setting yourself up for guaranteed and early failure, which is why Farage - who is no fool when it comes to wrecking things - has already honed in on that near-guaranteed 'betrayal'. There simply isn't time for a new leader to put in place either a new negotiated deal, or no-deal preparations, by October 31st. Unless the French don't agree, the deadline will be missed. And any PM who relies on the French to shaft us in order to meet an arbitrary date promise will be a very short-lived PM.
Less obvious at first sight is that this is also the way for a serious candidate to maximise his or her chances of winning the leadership contest. Why? Because how else do you differentiate yourself from Boris? As I put it on the previous thread, if party members want snake oil, why would they not buy it direct from the blonde snake-charmer?
This argument has to be won on its merits, and that means telling at least a modicum of truth. In any case, what is there to lose? Who wants to be a new party leader doomed to early and ignominious failure?
> @DavidL said: > > We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes. > ---------
The EU has already published in detail where they would facilitate continuity in the event of No Deal, and where they wouldn't, and there will be tariffs. Why would they have any interest in making things easy for us under No Deal, beyond the minimum required to mitigate problems on their side?
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas. > > > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency. > > Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site):
The Ashcroft poll cements into place a few things:
1. The Tories only hope of relevance is to offer hard Brexit to bring back that swathe of Con>BXP switchers. Yes, Brexit Party would put a hole in their election strategy and absolutely means no majority, but would a short lived coalition between Con and Brexit be a bad thing of both deliver the blessed Brexit of their sexual fantasies? Can't see the Brexit party having a future afterwards at which time the Tories can expect to get most of them back
2. Labour's only hope of relevance is to offer hard Remain. Scotland is already lost to the SNP and isn't coming back. Screaming Brexiteers are lost to BXP and aren't coming back. Which means the future has to be coalition with LibDems and Greens as there is no chance of a majority.
3. The explosion in electable parties makes for interesting polling seat by seat. We could get some wild results! What doesn't change until we get an election is parliamentary maths - there is no majority for any leave deal in the current parliament. But a ConBrexit government could make it happen - I still think a new Tory leader especially a hard Brexiteer has to go straight to the country
> @DavidL said: > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. >
May got a deal. Not one that found universal favour in her own Cabinet but there it was. Even then, it was the backstop, which was intended never to come into use, that so enraged the ERG.
There is room for negotiation round the customs union and single market, perhaps under a shiny new name. We know this because Theresa May was able to talk to Labour about it.
Hunt (or anyone) could probably get a different deal by not being hung up on Freedom of Movement like Theresa May was. The EU makes great play of its four freedoms so would probably be open to new negotiations with a new regime that would respect them.
> @RochdalePioneers said: > The Ashcroft poll cements into place a few things: > > 1. The Tories only hope of relevance is to offer hard Brexit to bring back that swathe of Con>BXP switchers. Yes, Brexit Party would put a hole in their election strategy and absolutely means no majority, but would a short lived coalition between Con and Brexit be a bad thing of both deliver the blessed Brexit of their sexual fantasies? Can't see the Brexit party having a future afterwards at which time the Tories can expect to get most of them back > > 2. Labour's only hope of relevance is to offer hard Remain. Scotland is already lost to the SNP and isn't coming back. Screaming Brexiteers are lost to BXP and aren't coming back. Which means the future has to be coalition with LibDems and Greens as there is no chance of a majority. > > 3. The explosion in electable parties makes for interesting polling seat by seat. We could get some wild results! What doesn't change until we get an election is parliamentary maths - there is no majority for any leave deal in the current parliament. But a ConBrexit government could make it happen - I still think a new Tory leader especially a hard Brexiteer has to go straight to the country
Good post with some thoughts appropriate to the situation.
> @Harris_Tweed said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > > > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > > > > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas. > > > > > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency. > > > > Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive). > > Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site): > > https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/?x=512694&y=301260&z=5&bnd1=UTA&bnd2=WMC&labels=off
It probably is. The term "Tory area" doesn't really work any more, since the archetypes of such would have been Surrey and Lincolnshire, yet under FPTnP Surrey would just have elected a batch of LibDems and Lincolnshire a batch of BXPs. Peterborough is more Lincolnshire than Surrey, if with a hint of the latter from Cambridge overspill.
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
May got a deal. Not one that found universal favour in her own Cabinet but there it was. Even then, it was the backstop, which was intended never to come into use, that so enraged the ERG.
There is room for negotiation round the customs union and single market, perhaps under a shiny new name. We know this because Theresa May was able to talk to Labour about it.
Hunt (or anyone) could probably get a different deal by not being hung up on Freedom of Movement like Theresa May was. The EU makes great play of its four freedoms so would probably be open to new negotiations with a new regime that would respect them.
Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue.
Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain. I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.
Nope. If we don't have a deal, we'll ask for another extension. If we don't get one, A50 will be revoked by the House of Commons. That's the current situation.
Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across?
Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain. I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.
Nope. If we don't have a deal, we'll ask for another extension. If we don't get one, A50 will be revoked by the House of Commons. That's the current situation.
Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across?
Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
It seems to me that most of these people have a great deal of difficulty with reality.
> @ydoethur said: > Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain. > I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out. > > Nope. If we don't have a deal, we'll ask for another extension. If we don't get one, A50 will be revoked by the House of Commons. That's the current situation. > > Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across? > > Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
> > > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
> > >
> > > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
> > >
> > > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
> > >
> > > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
> > >
> >
> > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
> >
> > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
> >
> >
>
> While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency...
>
> One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
More likely the Tories will throw NI under the bus and get rid of the backstop issue.
Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions or pacts, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
Farage's current mission is to destroy the Tory party completely though. What would have to change there ?
I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
> @malcolmg said: > You can look as this two ways: what is the right thing to do, and what will help win the immediate leadership contest. > > > > The first is not in any doubt: no deal is a disaster in its own right, and would consign the Tories to oblivion for a decade at least. No serious candidate could support it. Even in short-term electoral terms it makes zero sense; you can't out-Farage Farage, and whatever you do you are going to be accused of betrayal by the ERG loons and the Brexit Party. > > > > Even more stupid for a new leader than suggesting no deal is a realistic and desirable option is to tie yourself into the Oct 31st deadline: that really is setting yourself up for guaranteed and early failure, which is why Farage - who is no fool when it comes to wrecking things - has already honed in on that near-guaranteed 'betrayal'. There simply isn't time for a new leader to put in place either a new negotiated deal, or no-deal preparations, by October 31st. Unless the French don't agree, the deadline will be missed. And any PM who relies on the French to shaft us in order to meet an arbitrary date promise will be a very short-lived PM. > > > > Less obvious at first sight is that this is also the way for a serious candidate to maximise his or her chances of winning the leadership contest. Why? Because how else do you differentiate yourself from Boris? As I put it on the previous thread, if party members want snake oil, why would they not buy it direct from the blonde snake-charmer? > > > > This argument has to be won on its merits, and that means telling at least a modicum of truth. In any case, what is there to lose? Who wants to be a new party leader doomed to early and ignominious failure? > > "Tories" and "Truth" is an oxymoron
> Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain.
> I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.
>
> Nope. If we don't have a deal, we'll ask for another extension. If we don't get one, A50 will be revoked by the House of Commons. That's the current situation.
>
> Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across?
>
> Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
Ok. Definitely trolling.
I can't help it if you don't like the facts. They remain facts.
(My middle paragraph is of course speculative - you can discount that.)
> @ydoethur said: > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
> @WhisperingOracle said: > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. -----------
Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
> I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
> And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
>
> I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
> @Nemtynakht said: > > @ydoethur said: > > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes. > > Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
Eastern Europe has changed dramatically for the better over recent years; it is one of the unsung successes of the EU.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Harris_Tweed said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > > > > > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > > > > > > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas. > > > > > > > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency. > > > > > > Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive). > > > > Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site): > > > > https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/?x=512694&y=301260&z=5&bnd1=UTA&bnd2=WMC&labels=off > > It probably is. The term "Tory area" doesn't really work any more, since the archetypes of such would have been Surrey and Lincolnshire, yet under FPTnP Surrey would just have elected a batch of LibDems and Lincolnshire a batch of BXPs. Peterborough is more Lincolnshire than Surrey, if with a hint of the latter from Cambridge overspill.
Peterborough is very much in the Lincolnshire bracket IMO. South-east enough to have natural pressures on services but sufficiently fen-like to have a ruck of low-paid jobs on the fields. And I've seen moans about the state of retail in the city centre which if true would suggest it's separated by more than a few dozen miles from Cambridge.
Peterborough is really a test of to what extent BXP voters will stick with Farage in an election to parliament.
On the remain side, the result is a predictable split with (generalising horribly) Labour retaining its significant ethnic vote and the LibDems cleaning up amongst the middle class remainers. Which is exactly what just happened in that seat.
If BXP retains most of the Tories, their victory is assured. If, on the other hand, a significant chunk of Tories return to the fold when it comes to choosing an actual MP, the contest becomes open.
> @williamglenn said: > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > ----------- > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
Labour's strategy would probably be to mostly focus on things other than Brexit, and rely on coverage rules to make sure they actually got heard out. No idea whether it would work- the public seems Brexit obsessed, but how much of that is just because the media isn't taking about anything else?
> @williamglenn said: > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > ----------- > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly.
The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties.
Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear
> @williamglenn said: > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > ----------- > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
A reasonable point, but don't forget that in a national election, the paucity of the Brexit's Party's overall platform and policies will be clearer, and in turn some Labour switchers will be more wary of the Liberal Democrats based on their record ten years ago, so I think both parties could rely on at least a little more of their base returning. When added to the more radical new switchers on both sides, both coalitions could get over the line.
Anything could happen in the next half hour though, as they say.
> @RochdalePioneers said: > > @rottenborough said: > > > > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue. > > Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union >
I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies.
> @Roger said: > It's beginning to look most unlikely that Brexit is going to happen. There's no majority for it among the MPs and now we know there's almost certainly no majority for it among the voters. > > I would also say the chances of a majority Labour or Tory government within the next three years is almost zero. For the Tories probably forever. > >
Could be another Rogerdarmus classic to file away!
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. B2, to an extent. > > A by-election only affects 1 seat, and the voters know it. That makes it fundamentally different to a General Election.
Just as extrapolating anything from the free hit to the main parties that was the EU election.
> @williamglenn said: > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > ----------- > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
There would be some amusement in watching a LD/SNP/PC coalition try and run the UK against LotO Farage.
> @ydoethur said: > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
Which illustrates the point.
The posh parts of Prague will be more affluent than the Anglesey and Maryport but then they always have been and always will be.
But the relevant comparisons is to compare areas in one country with similar socioeconomic areas in other countries.
Which explains why Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire might not be viewed favourably by the posh parts of London or the posh parts of Prague but appear as a cosmopolitan land of gold and honey to Transylvanian farm labourers or Silesian factory workers.
PS (Socialists) 33.38% - 9 seats PPD/PSD (centre right Social Democrats) 21.94% -6 seats BE (Left Bloc) 9.82% - 2 seats PCP-PEV (Communists) 6.88% - 2 seats CDS-PP (People's Party) 6.19% - 1 seat PAN (Animals and Nature) 5.08% - 1 seat
Nós, Cidadãos (sitting in ALDE) and PDR (Democratic Republic Party, sitting in ALDE) lose their seats
Turnout: 30.95%
Spain
PSOE 32.84% - 20 seats PP 20.13% - 12 seats Citizens 12.17% - 7 seats Podemos 10.05% - 6 seats VOX 6.2% - 3 seats Ahora Republicas (coalition of Republican Catalan Left, Basque Country Unite and Galician Nationalist Bloc) 5.62% - 3 seats Junts (Together for Catalonia) 4.58% - 2 seats Cues (coalition of Basque Nationalist Party, Canarian Nationalists, Valencian Democrats and and Commitment to Galicia) 2.8% -1 seat
Turnout: 64.3%
The MEP elected for Cues is from BNP (Izaskun Bilbao). The 3 elected for AR are 2 Republican Catalan Left (ERC) and 1 from Bildu. Out of the 2 ERC ones is Oriol Junqueras who is in prison and the other one is the wife of Raül Romeva who is also in prison Carles Puigdemont is elected for Junts
After Brexit, Spain would gain 5 seats: 1 PSOE, 1 PP, 1 Citizens, 1 Voz and 1 Together for Catalonia
EU Parliament asked for legal advice...Puigdemont apparently needs to return to Madrid to be sworn in...
Junqueras needs a permit to go out from jail to take the oath and then come back in prison. Then it is not clear if the Spanish law forbidding holding public offices for those under rebellion indictment is applied also to EU Parliament.
> @AndreaParma_82 said: > Portugal final results > > PS (Socialists) 33.38% - 9 seats > PPD/PSD (centre right Social Democrats) 21.94% -6 seats > BE (Left Bloc) 9.82% - 2 seats > PCP-PEV (Communists) 6.88% - 2 seats > CDS-PP (People's Party) 6.19% - 1 seat > PAN (Animals and Nature) 5.08% - 1 seat > > Nós, Cidadãos (sitting in ALDE) and PDR (Democratic Republic Party, sitting in ALDE) lose their seats > > Turnout: 30.95% > > > Spain > > PSOE 32.84% - 20 seats > PP 20.13% - 12 seats > Citizens 12.17% - 7 seats > Podemos 10.05% - 6 seats > VOX 6.2% - 3 seats > Ahora Republicas (coalition of Republican Catalan Left, Basque Country Unite and Galician Nationalist Bloc) 5.62% - 3 seats > Junts (Together for Catalonia) 4.58% - 2 seats > Cues (coalition of Basque Nationalist Party, Canarian Nationalists, Valencian Democrats and and Commitment to Galicia) 2.8% -1 seat > > Turnout: 64.3% > > The MEP elected for Cues is from BNP (Izaskun Bilbao). > The 3 elected for AR are 2 Republican Catalan Left (ERC) and 1 from Bildu. Out of the 2 ERC ones is Oriol Junqueras who is in prison and the other one is the wife of Raül Romeva who is also in prison > Carles Puigdemont is elected for Junts > > After Brexit, Spain would gain 5 seats: 1 PSOE, 1 PP, 1 Citizens, 1 Voz and 1 Together for Catalonia > > > EU Parliament asked for legal advice...Puigdemont apparently needs to return to Madrid to be sworn in... > > Junqueras needs a permit to go out from jail to take the oath and then come back in prison. Then it is not clear if the Spanish law forbidding holding public offices for those under rebellion indictment is applied also to EU Parliament.
Massive result for PSOE in Spain. Desperately poor showing by Vox. All good news.
> @ydoethur said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > > > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > > > > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes. > > > > Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order > > Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
I was in Poland at the time of the 1997 election. The shiny high speed train was nice, but you could still see the fields being ploughed by horse and cart out of the window. I imagine the investment and stability of the EU has helpdes, but I have never had reason to go back.
> @williamglenn said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > > There would be some amusement in watching a LD/SNP/PC coalition try and run the UK against LotO Farage. > > > ------- > > Farage is in favour of an English parliament, so such a scenario would be likely to lead to the union unravelling, if it hadn't already.
There would be PR and no doubt local parliaments in every region. Rutland would have it's own MRPs..
> @RochdalePioneers said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > > ----------- > > > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment. > > Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly. > > The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties. > > Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear
Are you sure it's only the Tories blocking an election? Change UK might not vote the govt down
Got any actual evidence - or might you want to wait for the figures reported to the electoral commission in July?
Perhaps people on here need some education on what really is 'big money' these days. The £25 the Brexit party has reportedly raised from its 110,000 supporters equates to £1.2 million less than Boris's house in Islington is currently on the market for!
Yes - one average house in London zone 2 costs £1.2 million more than it takes to set up a national party and win an election these days! And its hardly surprising that Boris can afford to fund an effective campaign - he is personally loaded. Most of the other leadership candidates are multi millionaires.
The Alliance Party just secured a seat in the European Parliament with a huge surge of support. Sinn Fein secured its expected seat. The people of Northern Ireland have made clear beyond all doubt what they think about (1) EU membership and (2) the backstop. So Jeremy Hunt proposes that the DUP be part of his Brexit negotiating team. The idea that the swivel-eyed English nationalists who are playing havoc with the Conservative Party have any interest at all in the Union or truly listening to the people of Northern Ireland has been been utterly destroyed. What an absolute shower.
> @ah009 said: > > @RochdalePioneers said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it. > > > ----------- > > > > > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment. > > > > Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly. > > > > The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties. > > > > Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear > > Are you sure it's only the Tories blocking an election? Change UK might not vote the govt down
Who cares about the CHUKkers. If Con and Lab vote for an election, then we get an election
> @Nemtynakht said: > > @RochdalePioneers said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue. > > > > Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union > > > > I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies. >
The border issue is very easily solved. Let the people of Northern Ireland decide. It's them that it affects. And it is pretty clear what they think. But there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of any Tory suggesting that because the ERG and the DUP will not allow it.
> There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
Ashcroft proposed four Leave options in his latest polling. May's Deal came last on 8% support.
MPs seem very unwilling to defy the people. Maybe they should defy the people and push an extremely unpopular policy through.
> @nico67 said: > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
Labour *are* the fence. They're all that's standing in the way now. Like it or not, the future of the country is in Corbyn's hands right now.
> @nico67 said: > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus.
The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
> @nico67 said: > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
It’s difficult to work out but we should identify pre 2016 labour voters. You cannot use th e 2017 backers as a base for normal labour support. They were bolstered by Greens and Libdems wanting to block Brexit. By all means talk about members, but they tend to be the most politically extreme.
> @Nemtynakht said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > @ydoethur said: > > > > > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > > > > > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > > > > > > > > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes. > > > > > > > > Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order > > > > Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog. > > I was in Poland at the time of the 1997 election. The shiny high speed train was nice, but you could still see the fields being ploughed by horse and cart out of the window. I imagine the investment and stability of the EU has helpdes, but I have never had reason to go back.
I have visited every few years since the wall came down (and neighbouring countries before then). My last visit, admittedly to more prosperous western Poland, was the first time when, just judging from the clothes and shops and cars etc , it could easily have been any southern European country
> @williamglenn said: > > @TGOHF said: > > > > There would be PR and no doubt local parliaments in every region. Rutland would have it's own MRPs.. > --------- > > No, Farage wants the English parliament to be the House of Commons and says there's no reason for Scottish MPs to go to Westminster.
Farage wouldnt be in power - it would be PM Vince.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @nico67 said: > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice . > > That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus. > > The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
Remember that on planet Remainer, 1 Labour seat in London counts the same as 3 in those funny Northern hinterlands.
> @Nemtynakht said: > > @RochdalePioneers said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > > > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue. > > > > Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union > > > > I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies. >
Technology is useful not just in Northern Ireland and should get the investment. But the backstop is unless and until. There isn't another border system in the world that would replace it, with the lone exception of the EU single market.
> @ydoethur said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe. > > > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe. > > > > > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes. > > > > Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order > > Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
You would get greater imbalances between different parts of London, even different parts of Kensington, than between London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
> @nico67 said: > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan last Thursday - more than double the Labour share - and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday.
The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place).
There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
Jeremy Hunt is beginning to look like a serious politician. Unfortunately the Tory Party is stuffed full of swivel eyed Faragists. Let us hope common sense, and the old Tory instinct for survival prevails over madness. Boris Johnson's enormous ego is well overdue for a large dollop of Karma.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @nico67 said: > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice . > > That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus. > > The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
Flint and the rest keep parroting the same lines and seem oblivious to who actually voted in their constituencies .
The majority of Labour voters there where Remainers , just because their seat voted Leave doesn’t mean a majority of Labour voters did the same .
Labours policy has always been to try and block a no deal , that’s one thing they’re united on.
Instead of Nandy and the rest constantly moaning they should be making the case to their Labour Leavers why they can’t support a no deal , if that means a second vote then so be it .
If there’s no other way out some of those Leavers will accept that .
> @brendan16 said: > > @nico67 said: > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice . > > Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday. > > The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place). > > There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden?
> @nico67 said: > > Flint and the rest keep parroting the same lines and seem oblivious to who actually voted in their constituencies . > > The majority of Labour voters there where Remainers , just because their seat voted Leave doesn’t mean a majority of Labour voters did the same . > ---------
That being said, if MPs like her actively took an anti-Brexit stand you could imagine it uniting a coalition of voters against them, and losing only 10% of their own vote could be the difference between winning and losing.
> The majority of Labour voters there where Remainers , just because their seat voted Leave doesn’t mean a majority of Labour voters did the same .
This is a key problem for Labour - they'll lose more voters by backing Leave than Remain, but the MP's in parliament on the back of Leave-heavy seats understandably see things a bit differently, worried for their seats.
> @anothernick said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > @nico67 said: > > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > > > > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > > > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > > > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice . > > > > Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday. > > > > The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place). > > > > There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington. > > So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden?
Respect the vote we had in 2016 and agree a deal - and don't insult people in Wigan by telling them they need to keep voting until they deliver the result people in Camden want as people in Camden are more important or think they are)?
I really don't think it'll happen, but if the Lib Dems pushed Labour to third, the narrative could be interesting. The Big Two (the holder and the challenger for the marginal) not even in the top two, and the new narrative of Brexit Party vs Lib Dems...
Not going to happen, of course, but amusing to consider.
The last time a UK parliamentary party deliberately let in an extreme candidate to give the membership "a real choice", he won,brought in many from the fringes and reshaped the party in his own image. There are three paths for the Tories:
- Go for No Deal and face infiltration by Brexit Party activists intent on stopping any softening of the policy, then reshaping the Tories into a national populist party from the top and the bottom Momentum style. - Get an extension in order to renegotiate, and face electoral obliteration when they fail. - Elect the most popular moderate with the public (Javid?), take the Deal and exit by the end of the year, then pivot to the centre and throw goodies at the electorate. BXP might win 10 seats but the Tories live to fight another day.
> @brendan16 said: > > @anothernick said: > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > @nico67 said: > > > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now . > > > > > > > > What do they propose is the way out now. > > > > > > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy . > > > > > > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice . > > > > > > Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday. > > > > > > The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place). > > > > > > There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington. > > > > So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden? > > Respect the vote we had in 2016 and agree a deal - and don't insult people in Wigan by telling them they need to keep voting until they deliver the result people in Camden want as people in Camden are more important or think they are)?
"Respect the result" does not mean agreeing with it. I respect the results last Thursday but that does not mean I have to support the Brexit party. We already know the deal the EU is offering and Labour has voted against it three times. There is no suggestion that the EU will change its position. The choice we have is no deal, May's deal or no Brexit.
Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
What do they propose is the way out now.
She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
I passed that point a long time ago. If she means what she says she would have made the difficult choice of approving a sub optimal deal. But just moaning about a ref is pointless.
> You can look as this two ways: what is the right thing to do, and what will help win the immediate leadership contest.
>
>
>
> The first is not in any doubt: no deal is a disaster in its own right, and would consign the Tories to oblivion for a decade at least. No serious candidate could support it. Even in short-term electoral terms it makes zero sense; you can't out-Farage Farage, and whatever you do you are going to be accused of betrayal by the ERG loons and the Brexit Party.
>
>
>
> Even more stupid for a new leader than suggesting no deal is a realistic and desirable option is to tie yourself into the Oct 31st deadline: that really is setting yourself up for guaranteed and early failure, which is why Farage - who is no fool when it comes to wrecking things - has already honed in on that near-guaranteed 'betrayal'. There simply isn't time for a new leader to put in place either a new negotiated deal, or no-deal preparations, by October 31st. Unless the French don't agree, the deadline will be missed. And any PM who relies on the French to shaft us in order to meet an arbitrary date promise will be a very short-lived PM.
>
>
>
> Less obvious at first sight is that this is also the way for a serious candidate to maximise his or her chances of winning the leadership contest. Why? Because how else do you differentiate yourself from Boris? As I put it on the previous thread, if party members want snake oil, why would they not buy it direct from the blonde snake-charmer?
>
>
>
> This argument has to be won on its merits, and that means telling at least a modicum of truth. In any case, what is there to lose? Who wants to be a new party leader doomed to early and ignominious failure?
Comments
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> >
> > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> >
> > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
>
> I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > > > >
> > > > > =========
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> > > >
> > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
> > >
> > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
> >
> > Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
>
> Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
Equally they were elected on their party's manifesto and to follow the whip of the party they were elected to represent. Both those items override voting for a deal that was perceived to not be good enough.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @kle4 said:
> > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
> > >
> > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
> >
> > I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
>
> Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe..
>
> And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > > > >
> > > > > =========
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> > > >
> > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
> > >
> > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
> >
> > Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
>
> Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
The loons, as you put it, make up an absolute majority of Leavers. There’s no point implementing a deal that commands no legitimacy.
It turns out that Leavers’ instincts were entirely negative and they had no positive vision. Who could have guessed?
As for what next, neither Revoke nor No Deal have any democratic legitimacy, the first because it was defeated last time round and the second because every prominent Leaver disavowed it as a possibility in the referendum campaign. But they are now the only two practicable options. So they should be put to a referendum.
> Mr. eek, a political situation this polarised and bitter is a problem for everyone.
Yes - my point is that you can't expect others to solve your problem for you.
DavidL is expecting that in the case of No Deal the EU will drop everything to help us out but why should they.
Equally why should a Labour MP defy their party whip to vote for a deal even their constituents don't like.
While the more I think about it the more a lot of these things are May's fault (she may be leaping ahead of Cameron as worst PM ever but it's a close run thing) the idea that other people MUST solve your problems for you isn't a sane assumption.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > >
> > > > > ===========
> > > > >
> > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > >
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> >
> > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
>
> The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Because the leavers who had also promised to honour the result said the deal was dreadful and damaging, and voted it down?
> Jeremy Hunt has done a great service to the leadership race by putting no deal at the heart of the candidates debate and it needs a plausable response from the other candidates and not the asinine response by McVey that we no deal on the 31st October
>
> To be fair McVey is not going to win the race and can get away with her vote losing strategy, but other candidates must understand that without a serious response their premiership could last, at best, just a few weeks
>
> And as for Malthouse assertion he will reopen the WDA and sort out the backstop is for the birds
Is Malthouse going to run on the Malthouse Compromise?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1133158165799931904
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. eek, a political situation this polarised and bitter is a problem for everyone.
>
> Yes - my point is that you can't expect others to solve your problem for you.
>
> DavidL is expecting that in the case of No Deal the EU will drop everything to help us out but why should they.
> Equally why should a Labour MP defy their party whip to vote for a deal even their constituents don't like.
>
> While the more I think about it the more a lot of these things are May's fault (she may be leaping ahead of Cameron as worst PM ever but it's a close run thing) the idea that other people MUST solve your problems for you isn't a sane assumption.
What we need is a PM with the same ability as DavidL to make any problem simply disappear by making a few glib assumptions.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> > >
> > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
> >
> > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
>
> Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
> I said this would happen:
>
> https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1133158165799931904
It's the same big money as behind BXP. The "democratic revolution", indeed.
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > >
> > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > >
> > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding.
> >
> > It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won?
> >
> > If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
>
> There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
I think we all know that alternative is not going to fly so we need to file it away with the other unicorns, along with the notion that the EU will reopen negotiations with Johnson or whoever to help them out.
It will come down to No Deal or Revoke and there needs to be a second vote to give either of those options a mandate because neither have one as we stand.
"Remain put forward their arguments [and lost]. They must embrace Leave!"
"The Labour Party put Leave in its manifesto [and lost]. They must honour that manifesto!"
He's odds should be way higher than 16 in that case.
>
> We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
>
---------
The EU has already published in detail where they would facilitate continuity in the event of No Deal, and where they wouldn't, and there will be tariffs. Why would they have any interest in making things easy for us under No Deal, beyond the minimum required to mitigate problems on their side?
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> > > >
> > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
> > >
> > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
> >
> > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
>
> Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site):
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/?x=512694&y=301260&z=5&bnd1=UTA&bnd2=WMC&labels=off
1. The Tories only hope of relevance is to offer hard Brexit to bring back that swathe of Con>BXP switchers. Yes, Brexit Party would put a hole in their election strategy and absolutely means no majority, but would a short lived coalition between Con and Brexit be a bad thing of both deliver the blessed Brexit of their sexual fantasies? Can't see the Brexit party having a future afterwards at which time the Tories can expect to get most of them back
2. Labour's only hope of relevance is to offer hard Remain. Scotland is already lost to the SNP and isn't coming back. Screaming Brexiteers are lost to BXP and aren't coming back. Which means the future has to be coalition with LibDems and Greens as there is no chance of a majority.
3. The explosion in electable parties makes for interesting polling seat by seat. We could get some wild results! What doesn't change until we get an election is parliamentary maths - there is no majority for any leave deal in the current parliament. But a ConBrexit government could make it happen - I still think a new Tory leader especially a hard Brexiteer has to go straight to the country
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
May got a deal. Not one that found universal favour in her own Cabinet but there it was. Even then, it was the backstop, which was intended never to come into use, that so enraged the ERG.
There is room for negotiation round the customs union and single market, perhaps under a shiny new name. We know this because Theresa May was able to talk to Labour about it.
Hunt (or anyone) could probably get a different deal by not being hung up on Freedom of Movement like Theresa May was. The EU makes great play of its four freedoms so would probably be open to new negotiations with a new regime that would respect them.
life is not just black and white
Check that
> The Ashcroft poll cements into place a few things:
>
> 1. The Tories only hope of relevance is to offer hard Brexit to bring back that swathe of Con>BXP switchers. Yes, Brexit Party would put a hole in their election strategy and absolutely means no majority, but would a short lived coalition between Con and Brexit be a bad thing of both deliver the blessed Brexit of their sexual fantasies? Can't see the Brexit party having a future afterwards at which time the Tories can expect to get most of them back
>
> 2. Labour's only hope of relevance is to offer hard Remain. Scotland is already lost to the SNP and isn't coming back. Screaming Brexiteers are lost to BXP and aren't coming back. Which means the future has to be coalition with LibDems and Greens as there is no chance of a majority.
>
> 3. The explosion in electable parties makes for interesting polling seat by seat. We could get some wild results! What doesn't change until we get an election is parliamentary maths - there is no majority for any leave deal in the current parliament. But a ConBrexit government could make it happen - I still think a new Tory leader especially a hard Brexiteer has to go straight to the country
Good post with some thoughts appropriate to the situation.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> > > > >
> > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
> > > >
> > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
> > >
> > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
> >
> > Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
>
> Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site):
>
> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/?x=512694&y=301260&z=5&bnd1=UTA&bnd2=WMC&labels=off
It probably is. The term "Tory area" doesn't really work any more, since the archetypes of such would have been Surrey and Lincolnshire, yet under FPTnP Surrey would just have elected a batch of LibDems and Lincolnshire a batch of BXPs. Peterborough is more Lincolnshire than Surrey, if with a hint of the latter from Cambridge overspill.
Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across?
Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
> Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain.
> I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.
>
> Nope. If we don't have a deal, we'll ask for another extension. If we don't get one, A50 will be revoked by the House of Commons. That's the current situation.
>
> Therefore, voting against the WA is voting to remain. This is why I'm coming round to the view that the 'R' in ERG must stand for 'Remainers'. I'm even wondering if they're a sleeper group paid for by Brussels. Surely even Mark Francois can't be as thick as he comes across?
>
> Fair play to Gove, for all my deep-seated and well-founded loathing of him, he was bright enough to grasp this.
Ok. Definitely trolling.
>
> Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue.
Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union
I suppose Chope would just about hold his seat.
Farage's current mission is to destroy the Tory party completely though. What would have to change there ?
> You can look as this two ways: what is the right thing to do, and what will help win the immediate leadership contest.
>
>
>
> The first is not in any doubt: no deal is a disaster in its own right, and would consign the Tories to oblivion for a decade at least. No serious candidate could support it. Even in short-term electoral terms it makes zero sense; you can't out-Farage Farage, and whatever you do you are going to be accused of betrayal by the ERG loons and the Brexit Party.
>
>
>
> Even more stupid for a new leader than suggesting no deal is a realistic and desirable option is to tie yourself into the Oct 31st deadline: that really is setting yourself up for guaranteed and early failure, which is why Farage - who is no fool when it comes to wrecking things - has already honed in on that near-guaranteed 'betrayal'. There simply isn't time for a new leader to put in place either a new negotiated deal, or no-deal preparations, by October 31st. Unless the French don't agree, the deadline will be missed. And any PM who relies on the French to shaft us in order to meet an arbitrary date promise will be a very short-lived PM.
>
>
>
> Less obvious at first sight is that this is also the way for a serious candidate to maximise his or her chances of winning the leadership contest. Why? Because how else do you differentiate yourself from Boris? As I put it on the previous thread, if party members want snake oil, why would they not buy it direct from the blonde snake-charmer?
>
>
>
> This argument has to be won on its merits, and that means telling at least a modicum of truth. In any case, what is there to lose? Who wants to be a new party leader doomed to early and ignominious failure?
>
> "Tories" and "Truth" is an oxymoron
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-once-in-a-generation-opportunity
Either the Scots have learned to reproduce more quickly than the rest of the world, or once in a generation was being less than truthful.
(My middle paragraph is of course speculative - you can discount that.)
> I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
> And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
>
> I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
So, counting Cameron as one, by October a generation will almost certainly have passed.
> Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
-----------
Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
> > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
> >
> > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
>
> Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
Eastern Europe has changed dramatically for the better over recent years; it is one of the unsung successes of the EU.
And on that high quality troll, have a good morning.
> > @Harris_Tweed said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
> > > > >
> > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
> > > >
> > > > Other way around - the constituency comprises 60% of the District with the other 40% (the suburbs south of the river plus some adjoining villages) being in North East Cambs. In simple terms some of the more Tory bits of the council area are outside the constituency.
> > >
> > > Ah thanks Ian. I know on Sunday someone wss talking about the Parliamentary constituency being more problematic for TBP than the district. Is that your impression? (Ignoring for a moment that Farage always flatters to deceive).
> >
> > Here's the map with both boundaries overlaid (love this site):
> >
> > https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/?x=512694&y=301260&z=5&bnd1=UTA&bnd2=WMC&labels=off
>
> It probably is. The term "Tory area" doesn't really work any more, since the archetypes of such would have been Surrey and Lincolnshire, yet under FPTnP Surrey would just have elected a batch of LibDems and Lincolnshire a batch of BXPs. Peterborough is more Lincolnshire than Surrey, if with a hint of the latter from Cambridge overspill.
Peterborough is very much in the Lincolnshire bracket IMO. South-east enough to have natural pressures on services but sufficiently fen-like to have a ruck of low-paid jobs on the fields. And I've seen moans about the state of retail in the city centre which if true would suggest it's separated by more than a few dozen miles from Cambridge.
On the remain side, the result is a predictable split with (generalising horribly) Labour retaining its significant ethnic vote and the LibDems cleaning up amongst the middle class remainers. Which is exactly what just happened in that seat.
If BXP retains most of the Tories, their victory is assured. If, on the other hand, a significant chunk of Tories return to the fold when it comes to choosing an actual MP, the contest becomes open.
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> -----------
>
> Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
Labour's strategy would probably be to mostly focus on things other than Brexit, and rely on coverage rules to make sure they actually got heard out. No idea whether it would work- the public seems Brexit obsessed, but how much of that is just because the media isn't taking about anything else?
A by-election only affects 1 seat, and the voters know it. That makes it fundamentally different to a General Election.
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> -----------
>
> Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly.
The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties.
Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> -----------
>
> Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
A reasonable point, but don't forget that in a national election, the paucity of the Brexit's Party's overall platform and policies will be clearer, and in turn some Labour switchers will be more wary of the Liberal Democrats based on their record ten years ago, so I think both parties could rely on at least a little more of their base returning. When added to the more radical new switchers on both sides, both coalitions could get over the line.
Anything could happen in the next half hour though, as they say.
> > @rottenborough said:
> >
> > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue.
>
> Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union
>
I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies.
> It's beginning to look most unlikely that Brexit is going to happen. There's no majority for it among the MPs and now we know there's almost certainly no majority for it among the voters.
>
> I would also say the chances of a majority Labour or Tory government within the next three years is almost zero. For the Tories probably forever.
>
>
Could be another Rogerdarmus classic to file away!
> Mr. B2, to an extent.
>
> A by-election only affects 1 seat, and the voters know it. That makes it fundamentally different to a General Election.
Just as extrapolating anything from the free hit to the main parties that was the EU election.
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> -----------
>
> Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
There would be some amusement in watching a LD/SNP/PC coalition try and run the UK against LotO Farage.
> I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
> And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
>
> I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
Which illustrates the point.
The posh parts of Prague will be more affluent than the Anglesey and Maryport but then they always have been and always will be.
But the relevant comparisons is to compare areas in one country with similar socioeconomic areas in other countries.
Which explains why Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire might not be viewed favourably by the posh parts of London or the posh parts of Prague but appear as a cosmopolitan land of gold and honey to Transylvanian farm labourers or Silesian factory workers.
PS (Socialists) 33.38% - 9 seats
PPD/PSD (centre right Social Democrats) 21.94% -6 seats
BE (Left Bloc) 9.82% - 2 seats
PCP-PEV (Communists) 6.88% - 2 seats
CDS-PP (People's Party) 6.19% - 1 seat
PAN (Animals and Nature) 5.08% - 1 seat
Nós, Cidadãos (sitting in ALDE) and PDR (Democratic Republic Party, sitting in ALDE) lose their seats
Turnout: 30.95%
Spain
PSOE 32.84% - 20 seats
PP 20.13% - 12 seats
Citizens 12.17% - 7 seats
Podemos 10.05% - 6 seats
VOX 6.2% - 3 seats
Ahora Republicas (coalition of Republican Catalan Left, Basque Country Unite and Galician Nationalist Bloc) 5.62% - 3 seats
Junts (Together for Catalonia) 4.58% - 2 seats
Cues (coalition of Basque Nationalist Party, Canarian Nationalists, Valencian Democrats and and Commitment to Galicia) 2.8% -1 seat
Turnout: 64.3%
The MEP elected for Cues is from BNP (Izaskun Bilbao).
The 3 elected for AR are 2 Republican Catalan Left (ERC) and 1 from Bildu. Out of the 2 ERC ones is Oriol Junqueras who is in prison and the other one is the wife of Raül Romeva who is also in prison
Carles Puigdemont is elected for Junts
After Brexit, Spain would gain 5 seats: 1 PSOE, 1 PP, 1 Citizens, 1 Voz and 1 Together for Catalonia
EU Parliament asked for legal advice...Puigdemont apparently needs to return to Madrid to be sworn in...
Junqueras needs a permit to go out from jail to take the oath and then come back in prison. Then it is not clear if the Spanish law forbidding holding public offices for those under rebellion indictment is applied also to EU Parliament.
> Portugal final results
>
> PS (Socialists) 33.38% - 9 seats
> PPD/PSD (centre right Social Democrats) 21.94% -6 seats
> BE (Left Bloc) 9.82% - 2 seats
> PCP-PEV (Communists) 6.88% - 2 seats
> CDS-PP (People's Party) 6.19% - 1 seat
> PAN (Animals and Nature) 5.08% - 1 seat
>
> Nós, Cidadãos (sitting in ALDE) and PDR (Democratic Republic Party, sitting in ALDE) lose their seats
>
> Turnout: 30.95%
>
>
> Spain
>
> PSOE 32.84% - 20 seats
> PP 20.13% - 12 seats
> Citizens 12.17% - 7 seats
> Podemos 10.05% - 6 seats
> VOX 6.2% - 3 seats
> Ahora Republicas (coalition of Republican Catalan Left, Basque Country Unite and Galician Nationalist Bloc) 5.62% - 3 seats
> Junts (Together for Catalonia) 4.58% - 2 seats
> Cues (coalition of Basque Nationalist Party, Canarian Nationalists, Valencian Democrats and and Commitment to Galicia) 2.8% -1 seat
>
> Turnout: 64.3%
>
> The MEP elected for Cues is from BNP (Izaskun Bilbao).
> The 3 elected for AR are 2 Republican Catalan Left (ERC) and 1 from Bildu. Out of the 2 ERC ones is Oriol Junqueras who is in prison and the other one is the wife of Raül Romeva who is also in prison
> Carles Puigdemont is elected for Junts
>
> After Brexit, Spain would gain 5 seats: 1 PSOE, 1 PP, 1 Citizens, 1 Voz and 1 Together for Catalonia
>
>
> EU Parliament asked for legal advice...Puigdemont apparently needs to return to Madrid to be sworn in...
>
> Junqueras needs a permit to go out from jail to take the oath and then come back in prison. Then it is not clear if the Spanish law forbidding holding public offices for those under rebellion indictment is applied also to EU Parliament.
Massive result for PSOE in Spain. Desperately poor showing by Vox. All good news.
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
>
> > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
>
> >
>
> > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
>
>
>
> Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
>
> Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
I was in Poland at the time of the 1997 election. The shiny high speed train was nice, but you could still see the fields being ploughed by horse and cart out of the window. I imagine the investment and stability of the EU has helpdes, but I have never had reason to go back.
What do they propose is the way out now.
She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
>
> There would be some amusement in watching a LD/SNP/PC coalition try and run the UK against LotO Farage.
>
-------
Farage is in favour of an English parliament, so such a scenario would be likely to lead to the union unravelling, if it hadn't already.
> > @TGOHF said:
> >
> > There would be some amusement in watching a LD/SNP/PC coalition try and run the UK against LotO Farage.
> >
> -------
>
> Farage is in favour of an English parliament, so such a scenario would be likely to lead to the union unravelling, if it hadn't already.
There would be PR and no doubt local parliaments in every region. Rutland would have it's own MRPs..
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> > -----------
> >
> > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
>
> Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly.
>
> The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties.
>
> Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear
Are you sure it's only the Tories blocking an election? Change UK might not vote the govt down
> > @rottenborough said:
> > I said this would happen:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1133158165799931904
>
> It's the same big money as behind BXP. The "democratic revolution", indeed.
Got any actual evidence - or might you want to wait for the figures reported to the electoral commission in July?
Perhaps people on here need some education on what really is 'big money' these days. The £25 the Brexit party has reportedly raised from its 110,000 supporters equates to £1.2 million less than Boris's house in Islington is currently on the market for!
Yes - one average house in London zone 2 costs £1.2 million more than it takes to set up a national party and win an election these days! And its hardly surprising that Boris can afford to fund an effective campaign - he is personally loaded. Most of the other leadership candidates are multi millionaires.
> > @RochdalePioneers said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > > > Rochdale's scenario about a Tory-Brex, and Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green set of competing coalitions, possibly with very similar totals, is the only convincing or compelling scenario for any election any time soon, that I've heard. Anything else results in Tory or Labour annihilation, so both parties would try to prevent it.
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > Even that could result in Tory and Labour annihilation, because their message would essentially be: "The Brexit Party/Liberal Democrats were right." Why not vote for the real thing? It would be a double "I agree with Nick" moment.
> >
> > Brexit is the only game in town. And on that issue your statement is correct - Con and Lab have made themselves largely irrelevant by failing to action anything or reach a clear position. The voters have very clear views- leave or remain - and are voting accordingly.
> >
> > The longer the current parliament goes on and fails to resolve Brexit the worse this slide into irrelevance gets. You want Con and Lab as part of government? Or reduced to rump status replaced by Brexit / LD in 2022? This parliament can't get Brexit resolved without an election. This parliament can't do anything else because of not resolving Brexit. And the longer it goes on the worse the damage for the main parties.
> >
> > Therefore an election - it's only the Tories blocking one, and buoyed by a bold new Boris faced with unending stalemate I expect them to go all death or glory and go for it. Or "enjoy" 3 more years of irrelevance then largely disappear
>
> Are you sure it's only the Tories blocking an election? Change UK might not vote the govt down
Who cares about the CHUKkers. If Con and Lab vote for an election, then we get an election
> > @RochdalePioneers said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > >
> > > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue.
> >
> > Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union
> >
>
> I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies.
>
The border issue is very easily solved. Let the people of Northern Ireland decide. It's them that it affects. And it is pretty clear what they think. But there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of any Tory suggesting that because the ERG and the DUP will not allow it.
>
> There would be PR and no doubt local parliaments in every region. Rutland would have it's own MRPs..
---------
No, Farage wants the English parliament to be the House of Commons and says there's no reason for Scottish MPs to go to Westminster.
> There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
Ashcroft proposed four Leave options in his latest polling. May's Deal came last on 8% support.
MPs seem very unwilling to defy the people. Maybe they should defy the people and push an extremely unpopular policy through.
> Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
>
> What do they propose is the way out now.
>
> She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
>
> Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
Labour *are* the fence. They're all that's standing in the way now. Like it or not, the future of the country is in Corbyn's hands right now.
Lega 28 (29 after Brexit)
PD 19
5 Stars 14
Forza Italia 6 (7 after Brexit)
Brothers of Italy 5 (6 after Brexit)
SVP (South Tyrol) 1
> Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
>
> What do they propose is the way out now.
>
> She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
>
> Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus.
The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
> Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
>
> What do they propose is the way out now.
>
> She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
>
> Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
It’s difficult to work out but we should identify pre 2016 labour voters. You cannot use th e 2017 backers as a base for normal labour support. They were bolstered by Greens and Libdems wanting to block Brexit. By all means talk about members, but they tend to be the most politically extreme.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > > @ydoethur said:
> >
> > > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
> >
> > > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
> >
> > Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
>
> I was in Poland at the time of the 1997 election. The shiny high speed train was nice, but you could still see the fields being ploughed by horse and cart out of the window. I imagine the investment and stability of the EU has helpdes, but I have never had reason to go back.
I have visited every few years since the wall came down (and neighbouring countries before then). My last visit, admittedly to more prosperous western Poland, was the first time when, just judging from the clothes and shops and cars etc , it could easily have been any southern European country
> > @TGOHF said:
> >
> > There would be PR and no doubt local parliaments in every region. Rutland would have it's own MRPs..
> ---------
>
> No, Farage wants the English parliament to be the House of Commons and says there's no reason for Scottish MPs to go to Westminster.
Farage wouldnt be in power - it would be PM Vince.
Parliaments for all. Even Cornwall.
> > @nico67 said:
> > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
> >
> > What do they propose is the way out now.
> >
> > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
> >
> > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
>
> That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus.
>
> The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
Remember that on planet Remainer, 1 Labour seat in London counts the same as 3 in those funny Northern hinterlands.
> > @RochdalePioneers said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > >
> > > Hunt also on about intelligent borders solving NI backstop issue.
> >
> > Likely a border patrolled by flying unicorns going off the level of intelligence shown by Unionist Party politicians over the workings of the Union
> >
>
> I’d put the onus back on NI to solve the border issue. Generously fund an open border research centre at Queens in Belfast. Throw some more money towards some Irish universities and get them to develop the solutions. Technological solutions for border issues are going to be useful across the world - what better place to invest an implement these new technologies.
>
Technology is useful not just in Northern Ireland and should get the investment. But the backstop is unless and until. There isn't another border system in the world that would replace it, with the lone exception of the EU single market.
>
> Farage wouldnt be in power - it would be PM Vince.
>
> Parliaments for all. Even Cornwall.
-----------
Would you not be keen on PM Farage?
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > I'd be interested to know which parts of this country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.
>
> > And then see the data as to whether those economically deprived parts of Britain have net immigration to or from Eastern Europe.
>
> >
>
> > I would have thought the key difficulty would be finding relevant data. For example, the North West, areas like Maryport must be comparable to some EE countries, but the area as a whole would include data from Manchester, which isn't. Similarly I would have thought Anglesey must be one of the poorest areas in Europe, never mind the EU, but disentangling the economic situation of Anglesey from Bangor University (say) would be hard work and they're included in the same region as Monmouth and Penarth for statistical purposes.
>
>
>
> Also if you pull one part of a region to compare to Eastern Europe surely they could find the most deprived bits of their regions and do the same. It is nonsense of the highest order
>
> Very true, although I would have thought - having spent a fair amount of time there - you wouldn't get quite such vast imbalances as you do between say, London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
You would get greater imbalances between different parts of London, even different parts of Kensington, than between London and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
> Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
>
> What do they propose is the way out now.
>
> She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
>
> Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan last Thursday - more than double the Labour share - and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday.
The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place).
There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
> > @nico67 said:
> > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
> >
> > What do they propose is the way out now.
> >
> > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
> >
> > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
>
> That choice is throwing their northern heartlands under the bus.
>
> The likes and Flint and Nandy will be out a job in favour of the Brexit Party at the next election so obviously they're not going to be happy about it.
Flint and the rest keep parroting the same lines and seem oblivious to who actually voted in their constituencies .
The majority of Labour voters there where Remainers , just because their seat voted Leave doesn’t mean a majority of Labour voters did the same .
Labours policy has always been to try and block a no deal , that’s one thing they’re united on.
Instead of Nandy and the rest constantly moaning they should be making the case to their Labour Leavers why they can’t support a no deal , if that means a second vote then so be it .
If there’s no other way out some of those Leavers will accept that .
> > @nico67 said:
> > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
> >
> > What do they propose is the way out now.
> >
> > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
> >
> > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
>
> Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday.
>
> The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place).
>
> There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden?
>
> Flint and the rest keep parroting the same lines and seem oblivious to who actually voted in their constituencies .
>
> The majority of Labour voters there where Remainers , just because their seat voted Leave doesn’t mean a majority of Labour voters did the same .
>
---------
That being said, if MPs like her actively took an anti-Brexit stand you could imagine it uniting a coalition of voters against them, and losing only 10% of their own vote could be the difference between winning and losing.
This is a key problem for Labour - they'll lose more voters by backing Leave than Remain, but the MP's in parliament on the back of Leave-heavy seats understandably see things a bit differently, worried for their seats.
> > @brendan16 said:
> > > @nico67 said:
> > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
> > >
> > > What do they propose is the way out now.
> > >
> > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
> > >
> > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
> >
> > Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday.
> >
> > The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place).
> >
> > There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
>
> So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden?
Respect the vote we had in 2016 and agree a deal - and don't insult people in Wigan by telling them they need to keep voting until they deliver the result people in Camden want as people in Camden are more important or think they are)?
The Big Two (the holder and the challenger for the marginal) not even in the top two, and the new narrative of Brexit Party vs Lib Dems...
Not going to happen, of course, but amusing to consider.
There are three paths for the Tories:
- Go for No Deal and face infiltration by Brexit Party activists intent on stopping any softening of the policy, then reshaping the Tories into a national populist party from the top and the bottom Momentum style.
- Get an extension in order to renegotiate, and face electoral obliteration when they fail.
- Elect the most popular moderate with the public (Javid?), take the Deal and exit by the end of the year, then pivot to the centre and throw goodies at the electorate. BXP might win 10 seats but the Tories live to fight another day.
> > @anothernick said:
> > > @brendan16 said:
> > > > @nico67 said:
> > > > Lisa Nandy and the rest of the Labour MPs against a second vote are seriously beginning to get on my nerves now .
> > > >
> > > > What do they propose is the way out now.
> > > >
> > > > She expects Labour to ignore 80% of its members , and now 70% of its voters to keep her happy .
> > > >
> > > > Labour have to come off the fence and make a choice .
> > >
> > > Because she represents Wigan not Wandsworth - and has some loyalty to the people who elected her on the 2017 Labour manifesto? The Brexit party won 42% in Wigan and using the Campbell methodology pro leave candidates won more than 55% of the vote there last Thursday.
> > >
> > > The Labour party membership is overwhelmingly London based and all the top shadow cabinet roles are held by London MPs (leader and shadow CE, Home Secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary) - unfortunately if you only design policies which are backed by Londoners you aren't going to win elections (and ironically catering to what London wants above everywhere else was what delivered Brexit in the first place).
> > >
> > > There is more to winning elections than carrying Camden and Islington.
> >
> > So what policy would you suggest Labour adopts so that it can appeal to both hard Brexiters in Wigan and hard Remainers in Camden?
>
> Respect the vote we had in 2016 and agree a deal - and don't insult people in Wigan by telling them they need to keep voting until they deliver the result people in Camden want as people in Camden are more important or think they are)?
"Respect the result" does not mean agreeing with it. I respect the results last Thursday but that does not mean I have to support the Brexit party. We already know the deal the EU is offering and Labour has voted against it three times. There is no suggestion that the EU will change its position. The choice we have is no deal, May's deal or no Brexit.
http://store.xkcd.com/products/self-reference