politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON race is not now about who wins but whether the next PM

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON race is not now about who wins but whether the next PM and leader gets properly tested and scrutinised

The recent history of PMs getting the job in a non-contested elections is not a good one. Gordon Brown got his coronation in June 207 and avoided the probing that would possibly have highlighted his many vulnerabilities. The same happened in July 2016 with TMay.

Read the full story here

DecrepitJohnL

Who cares? All true punters will be betting on the colour of the Queen's hat this afternoon, on the first day of Royal Ascot. Blue is 11/8 favourite.

DecrepitJohnL

What should concern us is that all the candidates assure us they can negotiate a better deal (in the next couple of months) but without telling us what they mean by this.

DecrepitJohnL

OGH and pundits generally might be wrong about Rory providing the sternest challenge. He might win if too many voters support him in order to send a message, without believing he can win or even wanting him to do so: the Margaret Thatcher route.

But if voters have regard for a plug-and-play prime minister, Hunt, Saj and arguably Gove have top-level ministerial experience and Rory does not.

RobD

Thanks for the header, OGH

DecrepitJohnL

On being untested in debate, the danger for the party is they end up with another May or Brown. The danger for Boris is he will be going in cold to the BBC debate against rivals with recent experience of hostile questions. He might yet blow it.

edmundintokyo

Generally I'd agree with this but the difficulty is that the members will want to be made irresponsible and/or impossible promises, and the more of those the winning candidate makes the more likely he will be to subsequently succumb to death by treacle.

I guess Stewart would be less bad than the others, because he'd force Boris to defend against attacks from a more reality-based direction.

MikeL

I do think Stewart has a real chance against Boris with the members.

Default position is to think Rory = Remain and members will choose Boris both because he is definite Leave plus of course his personality.

Whilst Con members do care passionately about Brexit, I've always thought that in any election almost everybody (including Party members) ultimately decides how to vote on general impression / feel of the Parties / candidates.

And Rory is going to score off the scale on general impression. And that could well trump Brexit policy, even with Con party members.

Boris has to be favourite, of course. But we've seen how important momentum can be in political contests - Rory has this too (again off the scale) whilst Boris is looking cautious and defensive.

I seriously wonder if Boris is going to lend Hunt something like as many as 30 votes to ensure Hunt beats Stewart when it's down to three candidates. Looks like Boris will have at least 135 and probably more so he can afford to lend 30. That would then be a colossal hurdle for Stewart to overcome.

Only problem for Boris is that if it's obvious that he is doing this it would generate terrible publicity which could damage him badly.

In order to disguise it as much as possible he'll have to lend Hunt votes immediately, ie in today's ballot. He can't let his vote suddenly fall in Round 3 or 4.

eristdoof

eristdoof said:

DavidL said:

Mistake by Bangladesh choosing to bowl first. Gayle is less dangerous after 50 overs in the field.

ODI Batting in England is much harder in the first innings (for day matches), batsmen usually get some tricky balls in the first overs, and scoring is slower. AUS and SA have come unstuck on this a few times by just choosing the default. But Bangladesh will probably loose the match, so the decision will probably "look like the wrong one" anyway.

surbiton19 said:

Lesson: Don't bowl short to Bangladesh !

Wow. Reading the match report, it seems like my comment on Bangladesh putting WI in to bat was spot on
"It is true that Holder’s team might have scored more. They had to recover from a tortuous start with Gayle stuck at the crease for 12 balls without scoring a run before edging to the keeper." (Guardian)
Batting in the morning in an English ODI is not easy.

The only thing wrong with my prediction was that "Bangladesh will probably lose the match"

Sandpit

Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with everyone who thinks Stewart would be Boris’s nightmare opponent. I think the membership are only interested in getting Brexit over the line, and will vote accordingly. In that respect Rory is continuity May, with seemingly no plan but to keep pushing the same deal that’s been rejected by Parliament three times already.

I think Boris’s nightmare is that Stewart and his supporters put their campaigning weight behind Hunt in the final two. Boris’s decision to evade any conversation for the past two weeks looks very poor, although I can see why he’s doing it - there’s plenty of things he can’t or doesn’t want to answer, but he gives the impression of not wanting to earn the top job but thinking it’s his by right.

Gadfly

The header has the timing wrong. Today's ballot occurs during the afternoon, and the result will not be revealed until around 6 p.m.

edmundintokyo

Sandpit said:

Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with everyone who thinks Stewart would be Boris’s nightmare opponent. I think the membership are only interested in getting Brexit over the line, and will vote accordingly. In that respect Rory is continuity May, with seemingly no plan but to keep pushing the same deal that’s been rejected by Parliament three times already.

I just watched the first debate and one of the reasons it worked so well for him was that he got to spend all the time calling out the other candidates' evident bullshit, and the only thing about his plan that they ever made him defend was the part where it rejects theirs.

Scott_P

Sandpit said:

Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with everyone who thinks Stewart would be Boris’s nightmare opponent. I think the membership are only interested in getting Brexit over the line, and will vote accordingly. In that respect Rory is continuity May, with seemingly no plan but to keep pushing the same deal that’s been rejected by Parliament three times already.

Wrong way round.

BoZo is continuity May.

He has no plan to leave, except saying we are leaving on this date, which May did 108 times.

How did that work out?

Scott_P

And yet for all its homemade feel and for all the candidate’s oddities, Mr Stewart is tapping into some real feelings. The country badly needs a prime minister who can be respected even by people who did not vote for him. Neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Corbyn can be that man. Mr Stewart just might be.

I am struck by the number of folk who hope that might be the case. I think of the former Labour candidate whose “borderline communist” father thinks Mr Stewart comes across well or the land reform campaigner who tells me he’d have been prepared to join the Tories if it meant he could vote for Mr Stewart. There are plenty of others out there thinking like this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tories-must-face-rory-stewart-s-inconvenient-truth-5w3gw20j8

AlastairMeeks

I suspect that the main reason why Boris Johnson is following a Garbo strategy for his leadership campaign is not the one commonly assumed. He’s very capable of handling interviews and debates. But if he is grilled, he is going to have to disappoint some of the supporters to whom he has implied different things - and further antagonise some of his opponents. If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister, but if he didn’t appal them most of his electorate would feel betrayed. The problem is not becoming next Conservative leader but next Prime Minister.

Nigelb

AlastairMeeks said:

I suspect that the main reason why Boris Johnson is following a Garbo strategy for his leadership campaign is not the one commonly assumed. He’s very capable of handling interviews and debates. But if he is grilled, he is going to have to disappoint some of the supporters to whom he has implied different things - and further antagonise some of his opponents. If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister, but if he didn’t appal them most of his electorate would feel betrayed. The problem is not becoming next Conservative leader but next Prime Minister.

I think this very perceptive (though it is also true that he is sufficiently erratic not to handle debate well).

Johnson could well end up being despised by some of those who voted for him more than he is by those who won’t.

Scott_P

AlastairMeeks said:

If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister

Has he not already done that?

Nigelb

Japan refuses to blame Iran for the attacks on the tankers (one of which was Japanese owned) without better evidence:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/18/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-distancing-u-s-claims-iranian-involvement-tanker-attacks/#.XQhyC8rTWhA

Gadfly

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

williamglenn

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

He explicitly said that parliament wouldn’t be bound by it, and it’s purpose was to “get Lisa Nandy to vote for the deal”.

eristdoof

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister

Has he not already done that?

No because he is not yet Leader of the Conservatives. Some MPs have threatened not to support him, but MPs threaten to break the whip a lot more often than they actually do. We will only know how many will withdraw support when and if he becomes the Leader.

JackW

Mike :

Last para is inaccurate. Voting is 3-5pm. Result around 6pm.

eristdoof

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

IanB2

Isn’t the lead wrong? Today’s ballot is late afternoon with the result at 6pm

IanB2

Sandpit said:

Hmm, I find myself disagreeing with everyone who thinks Stewart would be Boris’s nightmare opponent. I think the membership are only interested in getting Brexit over the line, and will vote accordingly. In that respect Rory is continuity May, with seemingly no plan but to keep pushing the same deal that’s been rejected by Parliament three times already.

I think Boris’s nightmare is that Stewart and his supporters put their campaigning weight behind Hunt in the final two. Boris’s decision to evade any conversation for the past two weeks looks very poor, although I can see why he’s doing it - there’s plenty of things he can’t or doesn’t want to answer, but he gives the impression of not wanting to earn the top job but thinking it’s his by right.

The point isn’t that Rory presents an electoral challenge (none of them do) but that he presents Johnson with a practical challenge of actually engaging in serious debate and answering serious questions, rather than simply trading vacuous soundbites with others skilled in the trade.

That we have a candidate who feels so entitled that he can ignore the process of actually competing for the job is not good.

IanB2

Scott_P said:

And yet for all its homemade feel and for all the candidate’s oddities, Mr Stewart is tapping into some real feelings. The country badly needs a prime minister who can be respected even by people who did not vote for him. Neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Corbyn can be that man. Mr Stewart just might be.

I am struck by the number of folk who hope that might be the case. I think of the former Labour candidate whose “borderline communist” father thinks Mr Stewart comes across well or the land reform campaigner who tells me he’d have been prepared to join the Tories if it meant he could vote for Mr Stewart. There are plenty of others out there thinking like this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tories-must-face-rory-stewart-s-inconvenient-truth-5w3gw20j8

Across the spectrum there is a desperation for some serious grown up politics, after years of empty sound bites, dishonesty and fence sitting.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Quite agree with the Brown/May comparisons, and the sense of entitlement. Particularly unjustified, given he was a signal failure as foreign secretary.

JackW

IanB2 said:

Isn’t the lead wrong? Today’s ballot is late afternoon with the result at 6pm

Yes as noted earlier.

Don't blame Mike too much as he was considerably distracted overnight by the revelation in the "Bedford Telegraph" that he was a spy for aliens in the 1970's for "SMASH" - Get Smash Not Mash.

It's a hot potato for Mike - Code Name - Maris Piper.

OnlyLivingBoy

Nigelb said:

Japan refuses to blame Iran for the attacks on the tankers (one of which was Japanese owned) without better evidence:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/18/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-distancing-u-s-claims-iranian-involvement-tanker-attacks/#.XQhyC8rTWhA

Does this mean that Japan is in the pockets of Tehran and a disgraceful threat to national security, or does that only apply when Mr Corbyn points out the flimsiness of the Americans' 'evidence' and the worrying bellicosity of John Bolton et al? Obviously I share the PB consensus that Mr Corbyn is always wrong about everything, but I'm a bit confused about what to think now.

OldKingCole

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

IanB2

Wise words from John Harris and an attempt to see current turmoil in a wider context:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/17/prime-minister-democracy-dystopia

His conclusion that Johnson is the last person who will ever understand any of this is surely right.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

How is the population size of any relevance?

Gallowgate

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The idea is that it gives Labour MPs cover to vote for the WA. Something May never did.

AlastairMeeks

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

Roger

Interesting last thread with Jon Ronson's interview with Katie Hopkins where he explores whether she's a psychopath-almost certainly yes-and our own Robert Thompson showing what a one sounds like......

......Then there's Leave.eu's poster of Salvini and Trump waxing lyrical about each other and HYUFD prediction that Boris will be the greatest and longest serving Tory Prime Minister since Thatcher and you exit feeling you need a long cold shower or for your alarm to go off so the nightmare will stop.....

Casino_Royale

Stewart down to 12/1 this morning.

I think punters are getting a little too excited.

Charles

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1140862471953092609

malcolmg

DecrepitJohnL said:

OGH and pundits generally might be wrong about Rory providing the sternest challenge. He might win if too many voters support him in order to send a message, without believing he can win or even wanting him to do so: the Margaret Thatcher route.

But if voters have regard for a plug-and-play prime minister, Hunt, Saj and arguably Gove have top-level ministerial experience and Rory does not.

He has no chance, out on his erse shortly.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

MikeSmithson

JackW said:

IanB2 said:

Isn’t the lead wrong? Today’s ballot is late afternoon with the result at 6pm

Yes as noted earlier.

Don't blame Mike too much as he was considerably distracted overnight by the revelation in the "Bedford Telegraph" that he was a spy for aliens in the 1970's for "SMASH" - Get Smash Not Mash.

It's a hot potato for Mike - Code Name - Maris Piper.

That has been corrected

TheJezziah

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Nigelb said:

Japan refuses to blame Iran for the attacks on the tankers (one of which was Japanese owned) without better evidence:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/06/18/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-distancing-u-s-claims-iranian-involvement-tanker-attacks/#.XQhyC8rTWhA

Does this mean that Japan is in the pockets of Tehran and a disgraceful threat to national security, or does that only apply when Mr Corbyn points out the flimsiness of the Americans' 'evidence' and the worrying bellicosity of John Bolton et al? Obviously I share the PB consensus that Mr Corbyn is always wrong about everything, but I'm a bit confused about what to think now.

The Japanese have fallen to the Marxist terrorists, I have heard similar about Germany and France. We can trust nothing more from them.

Only Johnson and Trump can be trusted now.

Charles

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1140862471953092609

@MikeSmithson

If RoRo gets through can we please have a header on Rory Stewart Spooks Boris 😄🙏

AlastairMeeks

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

Charles

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Sure.

I value all of those things.

But I value democracy more.

DecrepitJohnL

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

What would the figures be without the one third of the membership that signed up in the last year? Still think entryism only happens in the red team?

malcolmg

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

And yet for all its homemade feel and for all the candidate’s oddities, Mr Stewart is tapping into some real feelings. The country badly needs a prime minister who can be respected even by people who did not vote for him. Neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Corbyn can be that man. Mr Stewart just might be.

I am struck by the number of folk who hope that might be the case. I think of the former Labour candidate whose “borderline communist” father thinks Mr Stewart comes across well or the land reform campaigner who tells me he’d have been prepared to join the Tories if it meant he could vote for Mr Stewart. There are plenty of others out there thinking like this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tories-must-face-rory-stewart-s-inconvenient-truth-5w3gw20j8

Across the spectrum there is a desperation for some serious grown up politics, after years of empty sound bites, dishonesty and fence sitting.

There are also an awful lot of dupes who are easily taken in as we have seen with the charlatans that are in parliament. We have a thick population that are like sheep, easily led to the slaughter.

IanB2

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

Getting their no deal practice in early.

Gadfly

Gallowgate said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The idea is that it gives Labour MPs cover to vote for the WA. Something May never did.

Yes, I get the idea behind it, but the idea keeps changing, and it doesn't appear to provide any better answers than his opponents' ideas.

FF43

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

Roger

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

More of them want to keep Arlene Foster and her nut-jobs than Scotland?

......When you thought things couldn't get any worse.

Charles

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.

So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.

No Deal on balance yes

Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling

There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient

DavidL

AlastairMeeks said:

I suspect that the main reason why Boris Johnson is following a Garbo strategy for his leadership campaign is not the one commonly assumed. He’s very capable of handling interviews and debates. But if he is grilled, he is going to have to disappoint some of the supporters to whom he has implied different things - and further antagonise some of his opponents. If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister, but if he didn’t appal them most of his electorate would feel betrayed. The problem is not becoming next Conservative leader but next Prime Minister.

I agree with this. Boris needs some creative ambiguity to hold his leadership coalition, his party and potentially his government together. Those expecting clear or precise answers in the BBC debate this evening are going to be disappointed. The simplistic view will be that Stewart (if he is there) or the like "won" the debate but if Boris holds the various factions together he will have achieved something more substantive. For Boris it is all about creating some wiggle room. He is going to need it.

Cicero

I think the "lending" of votes to Hunt in order to stop Stewart from getting onto the member's ballot is fraught with danger for Boris. Specifically it undermines the sense of inevitability that cruising to 114, when expected to get 80-90 votes, has given the favourite.

It may be that Stewart might gain comparatively more momentum, but its still really only relative to the field - he's not even close to Johnson in MP support. Meanwhile, the "wife stealer" story clearly planted by Stewart's enemies, while it may not match Boris's own flagrant indiscretions, does slightly take the gleam off Rory's halo- expect more in like (dirty trick) mood.

However if Boris wants to win he can't really hide, he has to come out fighting and be convincing. If he can not do that, then we could genuinely see a real upset on the cards... If Rory can make the cut today.

malcolmg

MikeL said:

I do think Stewart has a real chance against Boris with the members.

Default position is to think Rory = Remain and members will choose Boris both because he is definite Leave plus of course his personality.

Whilst Con members do care passionately about Brexit, I've always thought that in any election almost everybody (including Party members) ultimately decides how to vote on general impression / feel of the Parties / candidates.

And Rory is going to score off the scale on general impression. And that could well trump Brexit policy, even with Con party members.

Boris has to be favourite, of course. But we've seen how important momentum can be in political contests - Rory has this too (again off the scale) whilst Boris is looking cautious and defensive.

I seriously wonder if Boris is going to lend Hunt something like as many as 30 votes to ensure Hunt beats Stewart when it's down to three candidates. Looks like Boris will have at least 135 and probably more so he can afford to lend 30. That would then be a colossal hurdle for Stewart to overcome.

Only problem for Boris is that if it's obvious that he is doing this it would generate terrible publicity which could damage him badly.

In order to disguise it as much as possible he'll have to lend Hunt votes immediately, ie in today's ballot. He can't let his vote suddenly fall in Round 3 or 4.

Stewart is just May in a bad suit, he is going nowhere, even the nasties members have had enough of that guff.

AlastairMeeks

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

That requires people not already to have become entrenched.

Jonathan

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Sure.

I value all of those things.

But I value democracy more.

Excellent, a second vote it is. :-)

malcolmg

Cicero said:

I think the "lending" of votes to Hunt in order to stop Stewart from getting onto the member's ballot is fraught with danger for Boris. Specifically it undermines the sense of inevitability that cruising to 114, when expected to get 80-90 votes, has given the favourite.

It may be that Stewart might gain comparatively more momentum, but its still really only relative to the field - he's not even close to Johnson in MP support. Meanwhile, the "wife stealer" story clearly planted by Stewart's enemies, while it may not match Boris's own flagrant indiscretions, does slightly take the gleam off Rory's halo- expect more in like (dirty trick) mood.

However if Boris wants to win he can't really hide, he has to come out fighting and be convincing. If he can not do that, then we could genuinely see a real upset on the cards... If Rory can make the cut today.

More likely to see pigs flying past

AlastairMeeks

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.

So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.

No Deal on balance yes

Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling

There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient

And again Leavers shift the goalposts. No deal is now the moderate option? Heaven help us.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140866617238331392

Roger

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

williamglenn

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1140646874325626880

nichomar

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.

So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.

No Deal on balance yes

Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling

There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient

What is “full hair shirted autarky” I think no deal is a disaster what could be worse?

Foxy

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Sure.

I value all of those things.

But I value democracy more.

Excellent, a second vote it is. :-)

This is not going to be resolved without a furter vore, but it looks more like a GE than a referendum now. Not one that it is likely to give aclear answer though.

Jonathan

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.

And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.

War is peace
Voting is undemocratic
Brexit means Brexit

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

How is the population size of any relevance?

Increased sorts and conditions of men (and women and.........)

OblitusSumMe

AlastairMeeks said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

That requires people not already to have become entrenched.

That makes it harder, but it's not impossible, and those in the middle, who are not entrenched, will have more of a chance to be heard. It might turn the tide.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it beats all the alternatives.

Foxy

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.

Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, Rory was 11 yesterday, I think, on Ladbrokes. Second favourite to Boris. However, he was also one of those likeliest to be eliminated at the next vote.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

How is the population size of any relevance?

Increased sorts and conditions of men (and women and.........)

Nah

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1140869018062118912

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

How is the population size of any relevance?

Increased sorts and conditions of men (and women and.........)

Nah

Why? Genuine question.

IanB2

nichomar said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.

So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.

No Deal on balance yes

Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling

There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient

What is “full hair shirted autarky” I think no deal is a disaster what could be worse?

Looks rather like putting Raab next to Boris to me.

williamglenn

r

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Sure.

I value all of those things.

But I value democracy more.

Excellent, a second vote it is. :-)

This is not going to be resolved without a furter vore, but it looks more like a GE than a referendum now. Not one that it is likely to give aclear answer though.

I don’t think it’s either/or. There will need to be another referendum at some point but the question is when and with what question.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/Annemariealex/status/1140856364643823617

ydoethur

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1140869018062118912

It's a bit like the time an excited constituency agent told Disraeli he had some juicy scandal on the 80 year old Palmerston - 'Sir, he still keeps a mistress!'

To which the rather wiser Disraeli replied, 'Heaven help us, if that gets out he'll sweep the country.'

DavidL

Roger said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.

OblitusSumMe

The counter to Mike's lead is the contest between IDS and Ken Clarke in 2001. Then a very ideological divide allowed a candidate so weak to emerge victorious that they later had to be deposed before contesting a general election.

The idea that the contest made IDS a better leader is somewhat terrifying. He could have been worse?

Scott_P

DavidL said:

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1140597103040897024

AlastairMeeks

DavidL said:

Roger said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.

The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.

ydoethur

OblitusSumMe said:

The idea that the contest made IDS a better leader is somewhat terrifying. He could have been worse?

We could easily find out if Boris really does become leader.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

eristdoof said:

Gadfly said:

I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.

I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.

The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.

The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.

The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.

Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution.
I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.

How is the population size of any relevance?

Increased sorts and conditions of men (and women and.........)

Nah

Why? Genuine question.

From statistics we know that the size of the population is irrelevant to the representativeness of the sample. Sample size is what matters.

On the politics I don’t believe there is a greater spread or complexity of view on Brexit in the Uk than on abortion in Ireland

That said, relatively few of the recommendations of the various CAs that have been tried have subsequently found favour with either politicians or referendums. I am sceptical that it offers the magic bullet to our particular situation.

TGOHF

If citizens assemblies are so awesome - why do we need MPs ?

CD13

Mr Jonathan,

Another referendum is democratic? How about a third one? Then a fourth? How about general elections? If you don't like the result, we won't implement it - we'll have another one.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1140860246522572801

Roger

IanB2 said:

nichomar said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1140863422223081472

Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.

I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.

So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.

No Deal on balance yes

Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling

There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient

What is “full hair shirted autarky” I think no deal is a disaster what could be worse?

Looks rather like putting Raab next to Boris to me.

If Typhoo put the T in Britain who put the Raab in Rhubarb

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1140758139500924931

DavidL

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.

The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.

That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.

As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.

ydoethur

CD13 said:

Mr Jonathan,

Another referendum is democratic? How about a third one? Then a fourth? How about general elections? If you don't like the result, we won't implement it - we'll have another one.

Do you mind not giving Boris and Corbyn ideas, please? It would be all too easy to do that under the Civil Contigencies Act.

MarqueeMark

When Boris makes his pre-ordained walk out of the door of Number 10 to give his first speech to the nation - can we have a book on what will he be wearing?

a) one of Churchill's Henry Poole and Co. suits, a cigar and a V-sign

b) an exact copy of Laurence Oliviers' Henry V tunic and armour. And haircut.

c) full Viking bezerker gear, with twin blood axes

d) Eton uniform of black tailcoat and black waistcoat, a starched stiff collar and black pinstriped trousers

e) full Liverpool kit

f) an England three lions shirt embroidered by nanny with "These colours don't run"

EDIT

g) Crusader uniform and tabard

Jonathan

CD13 said:

Mr Jonathan,

Another referendum is democratic? How about a third one? Then a fourth? How about general elections? If you don't like the result, we won't implement it - we'll have another one.

Well we’ve had two referenda so far. When the information changes it’s a good idea to think again. The information has changed, and yet we’re forced to stick to the second 2016 referendum. That’s no democratic.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.

The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.

That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.

As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.

Any inadequacies in the future relationship would be blamed on May’s deal (rather than Brexit itself) leaving us with no leverage.

IanB2

TGOHF said:

If citizens assemblies are so awesome - why do we need MPs ?

A big part of the case for a CA is that the participants aren't worrying about their career or their party or how they personally would look advocating this or that.

Big_G_NorthWales

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.

Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...

With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal

FF43

AlastairMeeks said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

That requires people not already to have become entrenched.

Views on abortion were pretty entrenched in Ireland too. I suppose the end result of the citizens assemblies was to come up with a worked through position that made abortion acceptable to most people. It may be also be possible with Brexit if people expect it to happen, even if they are mostly not keen. The assemblies may even decide on balance that it's better not to go ahead. It gives cover to politicians either way.

IanB2

CD13 said:

Mr Jonathan,

Another referendum is democratic? How about a third one? Then a fourth? How about general elections? If you don't like the result, we won't implement it - we'll have another one.

Silly post

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”

The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.

Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...

With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal

Unless held under STV such a referendum would almost certainly see No Deal win.

AlastairMeeks

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.

I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.

And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.

La Fin.

It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.

The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.

That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.

As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.

The essential problem is that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers have consistently pandered to the hardliners rather than confronting them. As a result, the idea of any Brexit that does not meet the aspirations of hardliners has been delegitimised. It’s far too late to turn that round.

DavidL

Scott_P said:

DavidL said:

May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1140597103040897024

The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.

hamiltonace

I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?