It really is bizarre, Johnson and his adoring newspapers are setting him up to fail in two significant ways: failing to find an alternative to the backstop and failing to manage a trouble-free No Deal Brexit. I can see the very short-term advantages of Oomph and Can Do as a means of rallying support, but medium term (ie, six months from here in February/March 2020) I just don’t see how it works. He can’t be so stupid as to have nothing up his sleeves. Can he? Or am I missing something?
There's no evidence of a Plan B. I don't think you are missing anything
I think he reckons that if he can be popular for a while and win an election with a good majority, other matters will play out one way or another. He'll be PM for 5 years, what's the problem? Not worth pondering the details, he'll feel, no doubt something will turn up.
Yes I agree. The polling with a split opposition is working in his favour. The European elections were just an aberration.
The fires in the Amazon in Brazil and neighbouring countries as plotted on a chart on Sky news are frightening
I do not normally comment on climate change but like Brexit I accept the science but are more moderate in how we adapt over the next few decades
However, the Amazonian fires are a reminder to everyone to treat our planet and all those living on it, including all animals, with respect and concern and I am pleased Macron is raising it at the G7 this weekend
Bolsenaro (after sacking the government statistician that stated cutting down of the rain forest had increased significantly under his government) is now blaming foreign NGOs for starting fires to discredit him.
What a wonderful world HYUFD is wishing upon us with his confederation Trump, BJ, Salvini, Bolsenaro, Duerte and all the rest.
I do find myself running a Godwin check in my head some mornings with our current politics and politicians, in particular playing through whether the time travelling to meet baby Hitler question has gained any relevance to our times.
I find myself assured still that our British leaders are still light years from answering this question in the affirmative, it is still totally absurd, although I'd rather it be utterly preposterous. Of course, if the answer were anywhere remotely near to a yes, I'd be unable to safely even raise such a topic here.
Brexit, as bad and as Juche as it could still be, is simply not a policy consideration which has any salience to the above.
Abroad things may be murkier, but we are still generally talking about the absurd and there is a long and honourable road yet for peaceful and democratic struggle in pretty much all places west of the old iron curtain.
Which begs the obvious question: who exactly would the USA be paying the money to? Who owns Scotland?
Unionists keep telling us that Scotland is a dead-weight, pulling down the Yookay. In that case, she can’t be worth anything. You lot should be paying Trump to take Scotland off your hands.
In fairness Boris/Cummings have played a blinder over the last couple of days. The euro-sceptic press are in such a frenzy of adoration that it will be difficult for them to row back and be critical when Boris requests an extension to give Theresa's WA another go. They've achieved something else too that's very clever: everyone is now worshipping Boris because he fought off the horror of No Deal. So No Deal, which many claimed was the optimal outcome only a few days ago, has now been vilified and removed from the equation. Smart.
I think that Boris is a jolly good salesman - optimism, bounce, and dismissal of detail as tiresome pettifogging go a long way. But the press like to ring the changes - they build you up and then drag you down, because it sells papers. I'm not convinced the adoration will survive an actual deal.
Which begs the obvious question: who exactly would the USA be paying the money to? Who owns Scotland?
Unionists keep telling us that Scotland is a dead-weight, pulling down the Yookay. In that case, she can’t be worth anything. You lot should be paying Trump to take Scotland off your hands.
I don't think any unionists think Scotland is a deadweight. They think, quite correctly, that Nationalists are dead weights, which, of course, they are the world over. I think Trump should buy Greenland and all Nationalists UKIPers and fascists can all go and live their and try and build their ideas of braindead utopia with Trump as their head of state
Prisoners lose many fundamental rights following habeas corpus and a fair trial.
Are you proposing prisoners should be as free as free citizens?
I think that losing the right to vote should be a specific penalty added where we think it appropriate to any penal law. Losing the right to vote for electoral fraud seems eminently reasonable, losing it for tax evasion or burglary is less obvious. It should not be a default assumption, because that has a specific effect - politicians cease to care what prisoners think, with consequences that are obvious to anyone who has looked at prison systems.
What is the position in other countries? I don't actually know.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
It's amazing how the idea that Johnson can win an election on a no deal platform seems to have become received wisdom. I do not find that idea remotely plausible. No deal is supported by at most 30% of the electorate, and some of those would not vote Tory under any circumstances.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
It's amazing how the idea that Johnson can win an election on a no deal platform seems to have become received wisdom. I do not find that idea remotely plausible. No deal is supported by at most 30% of the electorate, and some of those would not vote Tory under any circumstances.
42% in the latest poll. Looks nailed on maj for Johnson,with split opposition.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Yep. And how because Leave came so close to winning, we should have another referendum (and that Leave would have won but the result was fixed). Oh well.
To leave the EU according to the rules set by Remainers it appears necessary to have all of the following in place in conjuction: 1. A large majority in a referendum, well beyond that generally needed to settle general elections. 2. A PM and government committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 3. A majority in parliament committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 4. Acceptance of the EU's subsequent demands that set the terms of how we leave, effectively meaning that we have to ask the EU's permission to leave in the absence of any acceptance that the UK can possibly leave prior to agreement on the subsequent relationship being reached. 5. A period of many years between the vote and actually leaving, at the end of which all of the necessary conditions will still have to be in place. 6. A majority in a second referendum just to check we got the result right the first time.
In fairness Boris/Cummings have played a blinder over the last couple of days. The euro-sceptic press are in such a frenzy of adoration that it will be difficult for them to row back and be critical when Boris requests an extension to give Theresa's WA another go. They've achieved something else too that's very clever: everyone is now worshipping Boris because he fought off the horror of No Deal. So No Deal, which many claimed was the optimal outcome only a few days ago, has now been vilified and removed from the equation. Smart.
I think that Boris is a jolly good salesman - optimism, bounce, and dismissal of detail as tiresome pettifogging go a long way. But the press like to ring the changes - they build you up and then drag you down, because it sells papers. I'm not convinced the adoration will survive an actual deal.
Quite. Just look at May - she went from the new iron lady crushing the saboteurs to a craven old bat grovelling to the EU within a couple of years. I don't think it will take Johnson as long to follow the same trajectory - at the rate things are going he will be toast by the end of October.
Which begs the obvious question: who exactly would the USA be paying the money to? Who owns Scotland?
Unionists keep telling us that Scotland is a dead-weight, pulling down the Yookay. In that case, she can’t be worth anything. You lot should be paying Trump to take Scotland off your hands.
I don't think any unionists think Scotland is a deadweight. They think, quite correctly, that Nationalists are dead weights, which, of course, they are the world over. I think Trump should buy Greenland and all Nationalists UKIPers and fascists can all go and live their and try and build their ideas of braindead utopia with Trump as their head of state
In fairness Boris/Cummings have played a blinder over the last couple of days. The euro-sceptic press are in such a frenzy of adoration that it will be difficult for them to row back and be critical when Boris requests an extension to give Theresa's WA another go. They've achieved something else too that's very clever: everyone is now worshipping Boris because he fought off the horror of No Deal. So No Deal, which many claimed was the optimal outcome only a few days ago, has now been vilified and removed from the equation. Smart.
I think that Boris is a jolly good salesman - optimism, bounce, and dismissal of detail as tiresome pettifogging go a long way. But the press like to ring the changes - they build you up and then drag you down, because it sells papers. I'm not convinced the adoration will survive an actual deal.
Quite. Just look at May - she went from the new iron lady crushing the saboteurs to a craven old bat grovelling to the EU within a couple of years. I don't think it will take Johnson as long to follow the same trajectory - at the rate things are going he will be toast by the end of October.
May and Johnson are fundamentally different people. He has no interest in anything other than doing what is best for himself. That means No Deal. He cannot win without delivering that.
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
It's loaded alright but it's Leaver language. A particular and highly prominent Leaver.
But anyway no matter - the question is will you be sanguine about NOT leaving on 31 Oct with negotiations continuing in an atmosphere of realpolitik?
Because if I'm calling this right that will be the situation you are faced with.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
It's amazing how the idea that Johnson can win an election on a no deal platform seems to have become received wisdom. I do not find that idea remotely plausible. No deal is supported by at most 30% of the electorate, and some of those would not vote Tory under any circumstances.
Boris can win an election with No Deal if the election is held before the true pain of No Deal appears which I suspect will be late November.
So anytime before November 14th is fine for Boris - afterwards it will be painful.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
It's amazing how the idea that Johnson can win an election on a no deal platform seems to have become received wisdom. I do not find that idea remotely plausible. No deal is supported by at most 30% of the electorate, and some of those would not vote Tory under any circumstances.
Boris can win an election with No Deal if the election is held before the true pain of No Deal appears which I suspect will be late November.
So anytime before November 14th is fine for Boris - afterwards it will be painful.
I suspect the pain will begin shortly before no deal - panic buying and a run on the £. It will intensify in the first few days as cross-channel traffic grinds to a halt - I think the French will make sure there is an instant snarl-up just to drive the point home. So I don't think there will be window in which an election could be held before the pain become apparent.
Boris Johnson now has 28 days to find a viable alternative to the Irish backstop.
Huge fudge coming probably by both sides.
Overnight on 5 live (4.00am) there was a report from France which surprised me in so far as the French do not want dislocation of travel and trade with the UK and indicated that if chaos happens on the 31st October, Macron would come under intense pressure and blame.
Now this was from the French side and it is the first time I have heard an adverse report from the EU side on any UK broadcast media
Anyone interested should be able to get it on playback
Johnson cannot risk a fudge. He has to deliver a No Deal Brexit. Politically, anything else would be a disaster. And this is all about politics, nothing else.
I think he hopes, and perhaps believes, that the EU will fudge things sufficiently for him to claim victory and do a deal. But this will not happen - they are going to push him to the brink, though ATM I think parliament will find a way of stopping no deal, though only at the very last moment, maybe a few days before. Whatever happens Boris will be toast.
Not sure that Parliament blocking Brexit (no deal or otherwise) toasts Boris tbh. Particularly against Corbyn and a split opposition in an election in the immediate aftermath.
It's amazing how the idea that Johnson can win an election on a no deal platform seems to have become received wisdom. I do not find that idea remotely plausible. No deal is supported by at most 30% of the electorate, and some of those would not vote Tory under any circumstances.
Boris can win an election with No Deal if the election is held before the true pain of No Deal appears which I suspect will be late November.
So anytime before November 14th is fine for Boris - afterwards it will be painful.
I suspect the pain will begin shortly before no deal - panic buying and a run on the £. It will intensify in the first few days as cross-channel traffic grinds to a halt - I think the French will make sure there is an instant snarl-up just to drive the point home. So I don't think there will be window in which an election could be held before the pain become apparent.
It will be a macrocosmic version of a really good festival foul up, like this:
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
It's loaded alright but it's Leaver language. A particular and highly prominent Leaver.
But anyway no matter - the question is will you be sanguine about NOT leaving on 31 Oct with negotiations continuing in an atmosphere of realpolitik?
Because if I'm calling this right that will be the situation you are faced with.
Personally I might be but I think a significant part of the Leave electorate would not be and it would give Farage another lease of life. In addition, it would require Johnson to go back to parliament to get an extension beyond 31st October and that would leave him hostage to fortune as the likes of Grieve/Hammond etc introduce further legislation. He could then find his negotiating position undermined by a collapse in his poll support and by having his hands tied by parliament. I think that Johnson/Cummings well appreciate this. That is why I think you are calling this wrong.
The developments over the last few days can I think be best interpreted as Johnson being successful in playing for time to enhance his prospects of heading off a VONC against him in parliament at the start of September in order to get Brexit over the line on 31st October.
"Do or Die". More loaded Remainer language. I am in fact quite sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving on 31st October with negotiations continuing beyond that point in an atmosphere of realpolitik.
It's loaded alright but it's Leaver language. A particular and highly prominent Leaver.
But anyway no matter - the question is will you be sanguine about NOT leaving on 31 Oct with negotiations continuing in an atmosphere of realpolitik?
Because if I'm calling this right that will be the situation you are faced with.
Personally I might be but I think a significant part of the Leave electorate would not be and it would give Farage another lease of life. In addition, it would require Johnson to go back to parliament to get an extension beyond 31st October and that would leave him hostage to fortune as the likes of Grieve/Hammond etc introduce further legislation. He could then find his negotiating position undermined by a collapse in his poll support and by having his hands tied by parliament. I think that Johnson/Cummings well appreciate this. That is why I think you are calling this wrong.
The developments over the last few days can I think be best interpreted as Johnson being successful in playing for time to enhance his prospects of heading off a VONC against him in parliament at the start of September in order to get Brexit over the line on 31st October.
No legislation is required for an extension - it's just an update via a Statuary Instrument.
Your last point is open to debate but I think you have a fundamental philosophical difference with many posters on here that no amount of debate will overcome. You believe in democracy as an absolute. I, for my part, do not. Liberal democracy, which is essentially what we have in the west, means that there are checks against what we consider to be “the tyranny of the majority”. That is why we shudder at the phrase “the will of the people”. Yes, ultimately democracy prevails, but there are significant checks in getting there - hence the difficulty in changing the constitution in most countries.
So the backstop has democratic flaws but from a liberal perspective it is perfectly acceptable to preserve the peace in a troubled part of our islands. Should the sovereign will of the people so decide it can elect a government to walk away from it. It’s not easy but some things never are.
I suppose the problem I have with the position you articulate - though I agree with it in principle - is that it effectively gives a small section of society, those in positions of power holding an elitist view point, carte blanche to do what they like because 'they know best'. It is what we have seen time and time again for the last few decades. One minority mindset dictates to the rest of the population and when the population revolts on an issue they are ignored and told they are wrong.
Liberal Democracy run with an unfailing eye towards the wishes of the people so that small continuous change can be made to avoid seismic shifts is a great idea. Unfortunately we have neither the politicians nor the systems of state in place to have it work effectively and have not had for many years.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
and then they would have been ignored anyway as per the last 40 years
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
What on earth are you ranting on about? Until we hear some detail about this case it's best not to rush to judgement. Unless you have an agenda of course.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste? Also Damian's a chef and they are notorious for carrying knives. Jail the lot of 'em.
Personally I might be but I think a significant part of the Leave electorate would not be and it would give Farage another lease of life. In addition, it would require Johnson to go back to parliament to get an extension beyond 31st October and that would leave him hostage to fortune as the likes of Grieve/Hammond etc introduce further legislation. He could then find his negotiating position undermined by a collapse in his poll support and by having his hands tied by parliament. I think that Johnson/Cummings well appreciate this. That is why I think you are calling this wrong.
The developments over the last few days can I think be best interpreted as Johnson being successful in playing for time to enhance his prospects of heading off a VONC against him in parliament at the start of September in order to get Brexit over the line on 31st October.
Fair enough.
In terms of calling it, the thing I'm most confident about is that No Deal will not happen. An extension then flows from that as the most likely way to avoid it.
But yes you're right that it would not be an easy sell in the shires or Stoke. Or to the Steve Bakers. Farage playing merry hell is a given. So it must be combined with no election.
Perhaps an exotic face-saving way will be found to avoid both No Deal and an extension. That would surprise but not shock me.
Just think where we'd be if "Remain" had won. Osborne would be favourite for Tory leader about to receive the nod at conference from David Cameron's 9 triumphant years as PM.
If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we'd have heard endlessly about how the 16 million could not be ignored, and a Brexiteer would have deposed Cameron.
Yep. And how because Leave came so close to winning, we should have another referendum (and that Leave would have won but the result was fixed). Oh well.
To leave the EU according to the rules set by Remainers it appears necessary to have all of the following in place in conjuction: 1. A large majority in a referendum, well beyond that generally needed to settle general elections. 2. A PM and government committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 3. A majority in parliament committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 4. Acceptance of the EU's subsequent demands that set the terms of how we leave, effectively meaning that we have to ask the EU's permission to leave in the absence of any acceptance that the UK can possibly leave prior to agreement on the subsequent relationship being reached. 5. A period of many years between the vote and actually leaving, at the end of which all of the necessary conditions will still have to be in place. 6. A majority in a second referendum just to check we got the result right the first time.
Tut. You left out the General Knowledge round and the spatial awareness quiz, where you have to search the globe for, then assemble clear plastic shapes into a cube that gives you power as unto that of the Gods. Honestly, you didn't think it would be that easy...
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
What on earth are you ranting on about? Until we hear some detail about this case it's best not to rush to judgement. Unless you have an agenda of course.
The details of one particular case do not really matter. Probably hundreds of thousands of people will get similar letters. Aside from anything else, the names chosen, "limited leave to do X or Y", seem politically crass. I suspect the whole scheme was cooked up by someone far too concerned about a handful of edge cases that they did not see the harm to the great majority. Windrush was much the same.
Your last point is open to debate but I think you have a fundamental philosophical difference with many posters on here that no amount of debate will overcome. You believe in democracy as an absolute. I, for my part, do not. Liberal democracy, which is essentially what we have in the west, means that there are checks against what we consider to be “the tyranny of the majority”. That is why we shudder at the phrase “the will of the people”. Yes, ultimately democracy prevails, but there are significant checks in getting there - hence the difficulty in changing the constitution in most countries.
So the backstop has democratic flaws but from a liberal perspective it is perfectly acceptable to preserve the peace in a troubled part of our islands. Should the sovereign will of the people so decide it can elect a government to walk away from it. It’s not easy but some things never are.
I suppose the problem I have with the position you articulate - though I agree with it in principle - is that it effectively gives a small section of society, those in positions of power holding an elitist view point, carte blanche to do what they like because 'they know best'. It is what we have seen time and time again for the last few decades. One minority mindset dictates to the rest of the population and when the population revolts on an issue they are ignored and told they are wrong.
Liberal Democracy run with an unfailing eye towards the wishes of the people so that small continuous change can be made to avoid seismic shifts is a great idea. Unfortunately we have neither the politicians nor the systems of state in place to have it work effectively and have not had for many years.
Without liberal democracy you are simply replacing one type of elite with another one but without checks on their power. That’s wonderful until you end up being the one at the receiving end. Without the protections of a liberal system, specifically the despised judiciary, that poor landlord in Bristol would have been strung up the morning the tabloids fingered him for his tenant’s murder. The systems are creaking but they work. We are in danger of replacing our current elite with a Murdoch/Trump elite, still an elite, and the new boss isn’t the same as the old one.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
What on earth are you ranting on about? Until we hear some detail about this case it's best not to rush to judgement. Unless you have an agenda of course.
The details of one particular case do not really matter. Probably hundreds of thousands of people will get similar letters. Aside from anything else, the names chosen, "limited leave to do X or Y", seem politically crass. I suspect the whole scheme was cooked up by someone far too concerned about a handful of edge cases that they did not see the harm to the great majority. Windrush was much the same.
When politicians give functionaries the opportunity to cause harm to people's lives they tend to do so - and take pleasure in it.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
What on earth are you ranting on about? Until we hear some detail about this case it's best not to rush to judgement. Unless you have an agenda of course.
I am ranting on about the scandalous treatment of people who are British in all but legality. People who have contributed over the years in both tax and cultural terms to the well being of the country.
As for an agenda, I have several which you well know
Agenda 1) Brexit is a huge mistake. Stop it now while we can
Agenda 2) The Tory party has become UKIP and is no longer fit for govt
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
@Wulfrun_Phil I note your posting regarding YouGov. Are you the poster who has identified a "mode effect": a insistent difference between pollsters dependent on the mode they used? Mode effects have been good for getting in the past, as people tend to split the difference whereas they should just pick one mode and bet accordingly (it's working out which is the correct mode that's the problem).
If you are that poster, would you care to write a little thread header on it? I'd do it myself but conference is a week away and I have zero free time. I assume @TheScreamingEagles would publish it, tho obvs check with him first.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
1. I mean, most countries have a 2/3rds threshold for large constitutional changes. Would this make things that I want, like voting changes, more difficult? Yes, but the reason is kinda useful. I have spoken about why this is before, but briefly, 2/3rds is considered a good number because any large constitutional change WILL have negative impacts and unforeseen impacts, and so knowing that a large majority are in favour of it gives politician cover when those negative impacts occur. Also, with a 2/3rds majority the remaining third are more likely to accept the result. Also, with a 2/3rds majority, you are likely to find a simple majority who all agree on one implementation of that large constitutional change, whereas if you only have a simple majority in favour of that change it is unlikely anyone will agree on the how. Large constitutional change is not equal to GE. 2. The reason we don't have that is because politicians are aware that a 52/48 majority does not create a stable vote winning coalition of voters, especially because many within that 52 have different visions of what is Brexit and what is BINO. 3. Again, see point 2 and 1. 4. So this is the "why can't we discuss our future relationship at the same time as leaving?" bit. I mean, maybe that does make more sense. I'll give you that one. But if that was our position, why didn't uber Brexiteer David Davis hold out on it like he promised? 5. Yeah, large constitutional changes take time. Especially ones that existed in such a way that we have integrated our economy with it for 40 years. That seems reasonable, unless you want lots of chaos. Granted, the past 3 years have been pretty bad, but just yoinking us out of the EU on results day would have been infinitely worse. 6. In the event of a 2/3rds majority in the first ref, I would say this is unnecessary, although it would still be a stamp of approval that no government who had actually negotiated a good deal should be afraid of. In our current reality the need for a second referendum is precisely because the first one was 52/48 and we know that the coalition of voters who made up that original 52% disagree with one another about what a successful Brexit is, and therefore we would be making large constitutional changes based on a minority of people and what they want.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
Rather doubt that Brexit and Green will get nearly 20% between them. A lot of shake-out still to take place when voters are really obliged to make a choice. Easily the most significant take from this is split left/liberal vote. 1980s all over again. The blonde (or blond) bombshell prevails.
Rather doubt that Brexit and Green will get nearly 20% between them. A lot of shake-out still to take place when voters are really obliged to make a choice. Easily the most significant take from this is split left/liberal vote. 1980s all over again. The blonde (or blond) bombshell prevails.
That’s what happens when the loons takeover the Labour Party.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
To be fair to the Scots, presumably the whole point of independence is that they can run things differently. If they do not want to change anything, including the economy, then what is all the fuss about?
And finally, as was inevitable at some point, a Scottish sub-sample which shows Ian Murray losing his seat!
Actually Murray just holds his seat, SNP need a 16.5% swing from Labour to topple him, only a 13.5% swing on this subsample, though every other Labour seat goes and the LDs would be second to the SNP on seats in Scotland even if the Tories still second on votes
Yes, that treatment appears fundamentally wrong. As a matter of principle EU citizens should post Brexit be treated no differently than citizens of other countries living and working in the UK in the same circumstances, and that principle is not being applied here.
If he had been from a non-EU country to get here in the first place he would have had to meet clear conditions in order to first be granted a visa and then to renew a visa that would have allowed him to stay in this country for a period of 5+ years, after which he would be entitled to apply for "indefinite leave to remain" and after which he could apply for full UK citizenship if he chose. Instead, he has been here for 15 years without requiring a visa even though on that evidence he would clearly have qualified for one based on his employment circumstances without recourse to public funds. What there should be but appears to be lacking is some means to retrospectively assess the circumstances of his past residence in the UK, so that he could be deemed to have already met the criteria for issuing of a visa for a period of 5+ years, and thus be granted immediate indefinite leave to remain and as such open up a fast track to subsequent UK citizenship.
The issue has nothing to do with the merits of the UK leaving or not. As such it is not a question that should divide Remainers and Leavers. What is at issue is that the government and Home Office have disregarded the period and circumstances of his lengthy past residence, which is a political choice that I disagree with and is one that the decision to leave did not require them to make. The only caveat I would make to that is that in return I would expect UK citizens living in the EU in similar circumstances to also be treated the same by their host countries.
I see the hard Leaver Tories are today setting impossible conditions for a deal. Nothing will satisfy them. It makes compromise impossible.
This is why I favour revoke now.
You should have backed the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place then rather then set up a No Deal v Revoke showdown.
On today's Yougov poll figures Boris gets a Tory majority of 76 on a 4% swing from Labour to the Tories with 363 Tories, 182 Labour and 48 LD MPs based on electoral calculus
And finally, as was inevitable at some point, a Scottish sub-sample which shows Ian Murray losing his seat!
Actually Murray just holds his seat, SNP need a 16.5% swing from Labour to topple him, only a 13.5% swing on this subsample, though every other Labour seat goes and the LDs would be second to the SNP on seats in Scotland even if the Tories still second on votes
I see the hard Leaver Tories are today setting impossible conditions for a deal. Nothing will satisfy them. It makes compromise impossible.
This is why I favour revoke now.
You should have backed the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place then rather then set up a No Deal v Revoke showdown.
On today's Yougov poll figures Boris gets a Tory majority on a 4% swing from Labour to the Tories with 363 Tories, 182 Labour and 48 LD MPs based on electoral calculus
And finally, as was inevitable at some point, a Scottish sub-sample which shows Ian Murray losing his seat!
Actually Murray just holds his seat, SNP need a 16.5% swing from Labour to topple him, only a 13.5% swing on this subsample, though every other Labour seat goes and the LDs would be second to the SNP on seats in Scotland even if the Tories still second on votes
Written with gritted teeth!
I have some respect for Murray as he is a committed Unionist unlike Corbyn and McDonnell
Prisoners lose many fundamental rights following habeas corpus and a fair trial.
Are you proposing prisoners should be as free as free citizens?
I think that losing the right to vote should be a specific penalty added where we think it appropriate to any penal law. Losing the right to vote for electoral fraud seems eminently reasonable, losing it for tax evasion or burglary is less obvious. It should not be a default assumption, because that has a specific effect - politicians cease to care what prisoners think, with consequences that are obvious to anyone who has looked at prison systems.
What is the position in other countries? I don't actually know.
As I mentioned earlier Shetland by election next week will have current prisoners allowed to vote. Not sure of details.
Sack the electorate. If that tweeter is not a middle class activist who knows nothing of what is really mattering to the working class, I will eat my hat.
I see the hard Leaver Tories are today setting impossible conditions for a deal. Nothing will satisfy them. It makes compromise impossible.
This is why I favour revoke now.
This is why Cameron should have set up a commission to determine what Brexit outcome was put to the people. Not as a ploy to dish the leavers but so we did not get 52 per cent voting for what turns out to have been a giant unicorn farm.
It is why Theresa May should have set up the same commission before triggering Article 50.
It is why Boris should have set up a commission before settling on a date plucked from thin air by President Macron.
Two months to go and Leavers still chase unicorn Brexits, opposed by Remainers in search of a unicorn GNU. What a time to be alive.
Forriners who insist on having difficult to pronounce names? Better off rid of 'em! Bad eggs! Not sound chaps! Probably never went to Eton either.....
Never mind that. Why can't the Home Office format its own phone number properly, so it can be read by the mark one human eyeball rather than minimising the mouse clicks for copy and paste?
I see the hard Leaver Tories are today setting impossible conditions for a deal. Nothing will satisfy them. It makes compromise impossible.
This is why I favour revoke now.
You should have backed the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place then rather then set up a No Deal v Revoke showdown.
On today's Yougov poll figures Boris gets a Tory majority of 76 on a 4% swing from Labour to the Tories with 363 Tories, 182 Labour and 48 LD MPs based on electoral calculus
For what little it is worth I did reluctantly concede that Nabavi was right, the withdrawal agreement was a good compromise, and my objections were about how May had negotiated it, or with the political declaration that was a matter for further negotiation after withdrawal anyway.
But there's no point in Remainers voting for it if Leavers won't accept it. If they won't compromise then neither will I.
I think Edinburgh South is a safe Labour seat whatever else happens in Scotland. Murray has a huge majority. Bigger majority in 2015 for Murray too than Carmichael or Mundell - which takes some doing.
Rather doubt that Brexit and Green will get nearly 20% between them. A lot of shake-out still to take place when voters are really obliged to make a choice. Easily the most significant take from this is split left/liberal vote. 1980s all over again. The blonde (or blond) bombshell prevails.
I did a YouGov yesterday (22/08/2019) asking for VI in a GE. I indicated I would vote LD and was 100% certain to vote i.e. 10/10 to vote as YouGov ask.
Sack the electorate. If that tweeter is not a middle class activist who knows nothing of what is really mattering to the working class, I will eat my hat.
More to the point if the Labour party communications team was any good at getting its agenda in the media it might help promote the tweeters concern. The Labour party at the moment and its leadership have abdicated all responsibility in representing the views of those that have voted for them in the past.
Sack the electorate. If that tweeter is not a middle class activist who knows nothing of what is really mattering to the working class, I will eat my hat.
Imagine what they will be saying about the voters when the election is lost.
Yes, that treatment appears fundamentally wrong. As a matter of principle EU citizens should post Brexit be treated no differently than citizens of other countries living and working in the UK in the same circumstances, and that principle is not being applied here.
If he had been from a non-EU country to get here in the first place he would have had to meet clear conditions in order to first be granted a visa and then to renew a visa that would have allowed him to stay in this country for a period of 5+ years, after which he would be entitled to apply for "indefinite leave to remain" and after which he could apply for full UK citizenship if he chose. Instead, he has been here for 15 years without requiring a visa even though on that evidence he would clearly have qualified for one based on his employment circumstances without recourse to public funds. What there should be but appears to be lacking is some means to retrospectively assess the circumstances of his past residence in the UK, so that he could be deemed to have already met the criteria for issuing of a visa for a period of 5+ years, and thus be granted immediate indefinite leave to remain and as such open up a fast track to subsequent UK citizenship.
The issue has nothing to do with the merits of the UK leaving or not. As such it is not a question that should divide Remainers and Leavers. What is at issue is that the government and Home Office have disregarded the period and circumstances of his lengthy past residence, which is a political choice that I disagree with and is one that the decision to leave did not require them to make. The only caveat I would make to that is that in return I would expect UK citizens living in the EU in similar circumstances to also be treated the same by their host countries.
The Brexit debate is in part one of principle: whether UK institutions should be free to control UK borders or whether the liberties of EU citizens, including UK citizens, should be protected. Given this is a case of UK bureaucrats controlling borders/ restricting personal liberty, because they can, I would say it has a lot to do with Brexit
I see the hard Leaver Tories are today setting impossible conditions for a deal. Nothing will satisfy them. It makes compromise impossible.
This is why I favour revoke now.
You should have backed the Withdrawal Agreement in the first place then rather then set up a No Deal v Revoke showdown.
On today's Yougov poll figures Boris gets a Tory majority of 76 on a 4% swing from Labour to the Tories with 363 Tories, 182 Labour and 48 LD MPs based on electoral calculus
For what little it is worth I did reluctantly concede that Nabavi was right, the withdrawal agreement was a good compromise, and my objections were about how May had negotiated it, or with the political declaration that was a matter for further negotiation after withdrawal anyway.
But there's no point in Remainers voting for it if Leavers won't accept it. If they won't compromise then neither will I.
Most Leave backing MPs did vote for the Withdrawal Agreement (bar the ERG diehards and DUP), most Remain MPs voted against the Withdrawal Agreement though
On the basis of the Yougov poll - assuming UNS - Labour loses 34 seats to the Tories , 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP. That would bring Labour down to 217 seats. The Tory gains are apartly offset by 14 losses to the LDs and circa 8 to the SNP. That generates a net gain of 12 seats bringing them to 329 - slightly below Cameron's 2015 total. In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
Rather doubt that Brexit and Green will get nearly 20% between them. A lot of shake-out still to take place when voters are really obliged to make a choice. Easily the most significant take from this is split left/liberal vote. 1980s all over again. The blonde (or blond) bombshell prevails.
Yes indeed. YouGov's decision to prompt for both Brexit and Green is questionable and we also have to take account of the squeeze on both parties that will inevitably occur.
Without the prompt I would expect the result of the new YouGov poll to have been something along the lines of Con 35, Lab 24, LD 20, Brexit 9, Green 5. i.e. quite close to the last poll from Ipsos Mori who prompt for neither. With a further GE squeeze in circumstances where Johnson had just taken the UK out you could be looking at something like Con 38, Lab 25, LD 21, Brexit 6, Green 3.
Obviously, some will argue that the Conservative vote would be far lower because the reality of the immediate aftermath of leaving prior to securing a full trade agreement will have been proved to be every bit as bad as they warned of. And others will argue that the Conservative vote would be higher because the immediate aftermath of leaving will have been proved to be nothing like people had been conditioned to expect.
Rather doubt that Brexit and Green will get nearly 20% between them. A lot of shake-out still to take place when voters are really obliged to make a choice. Easily the most significant take from this is split left/liberal vote. 1980s all over again. The blonde (or blond) bombshell prevails.
Yes indeed. YouGov's decision to prompt for both Brexit and Green is questionable and we also have to take account of the squeeze on both parties that will inevitably occur.
Without the prompt I would expect the result of the new YouGov poll to have been something along the lines of Con 35, Lab 24, LD 20, Brexit 9, Green 5. i.e. quite close to the last poll from Ipsos Mori who prompt for neither. With a further GE squeeze in circumstances where Johnson had just taken the UK out you could be looking at something like Con 38, Lab 25, LD 21, Brexit 6, Green 3.
Obviously, some will argue that the Conservative vote would be far lower because the reality of the immediate aftermath of leaving prior to securing a full trade agreement will have been proved to be every bit as bad as they warned of. And others will argue that the Conservative vote would be higher because the immediate aftermath of leaving will have been proved to be nothing like people had been conditioned to expect.
I would expect the LDs to fall back to circa 12% with Labour recovering to the 30% - 35% range. Some pollsters already have them at circa 15%.
On the basis of the Yougov poll - assuming UNS - Labour loses 34 seats to the Tories , 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP. That would bring Labour down to 217 seats. The Tory gains are apartly offset by 14 losses to the LDs and circa 8 to the SNP. That generates a net gain of 12 seats bringing them to 329 - slightly below Cameron's 2015 total. In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
UNS cannot be applied in circumstances of extreme changes in the popular vote. In that poll the Labour vote is 18% down on average on its 2017 vote of 40%. There were plenty of seats across the UK where Labour secured well under 18% in 2017, and in those the fall in its vote must mathematically be less than 18%.
To leave the EU according to the rules set by Remainers it appears necessary to have all of the following in place in conjuction: 1. A large majority in a referendum, well beyond that generally needed to settle general elections. 2. A PM and government committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 3. A majority in parliament committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way. 4. Acceptance of the EU's subsequent demands that set the terms of how we leave, effectively meaning that we have to ask the EU's permission to leave in the absence of any acceptance that the UK can possibly leave prior to agreement on the subsequent relationship being reached. 5. A period of many years between the vote and actually leaving, at the end of which all of the necessary conditions will still have to be in place. 6. A majority in a second referendum just to check we got the result right the first time.
Well you can't just go leaving European Unions willy nilly. It's a life or death matter.
An analogy to confuse things? Yes, I think so.
If a person wishes for assistance to end their days it is not enough merely that they wish to die. They must prove they are of sound mind AND are properly informed of their condition and treatment options and prognosis AND have a good understanding of what this means for them AND for it to be judged reasonable that they want to avoid it - and then all of the foregoing must be concurred with by at least two competent and relevant professionals.
What utter bollocks, are these written by 10 year olds. If they looked at their own fake numbers they would see wales had a bigger deficit with a fraction of the budget. Also fact the dullards have Scotland with defense budget of 5.7% , highest in the world almost , you would think the cretins might pause to think instead of printing absolute garbage.
And finally, as was inevitable at some point, a Scottish sub-sample which shows Ian Murray losing his seat!
Actually Murray just holds his seat, SNP need a 16.5% swing from Labour to topple him, only a 13.5% swing on this subsample, though every other Labour seat goes and the LDs would be second to the SNP on seats in Scotland even if the Tories still second on votes
Written with gritted teeth!
I have some respect for Murray as he is a committed Unionist unlike Corbyn and McDonnell
On the basis of the Yougov poll - assuming UNS - Labour loses 34 seats to the Tories , 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP. That would bring Labour down to 217 seats. The Tory gains are apartly offset by 14 losses to the LDs and circa 8 to the SNP. That generates a net gain of 12 seats bringing them to 329 - slightly below Cameron's 2015 total. In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
UNS cannot be applied in circumstances of extreme changes in the popular vote. In that poll the Labour vote is 18% down on average on its 2017 vote of 40%. There were plenty of seats across the UK where Labour secured well under 18% in 2017, and in those the fall in its vote must mathematically be less than 18%.
Yeah, I've seen a few maps on these weird numbers that produce outcomes in seats I just can't believe. F'rinstance I know the Stoke area is more Brexity and going in the Tory direction a bit, but I can't imagine all the seats going Tory. Also, St Albans is deffo looking like a LD target from Tories, but even on some of these strong Tory / weak LD numbers they are still predicted to flip it, and I find that less certain. I dunno how different models work, but I wonder if they're accounting Leave / Remain and EU results a bit favourably....
On the basis of the Yougov poll - assuming UNS - Labour loses 34 seats to the Tories , 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP. That would bring Labour down to 217 seats. The Tory gains are apartly offset by 14 losses to the LDs and circa 8 to the SNP. That generates a net gain of 12 seats bringing them to 329 - slightly below Cameron's 2015 total. In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
UNS cannot be applied in circumstances of extreme changes in the popular vote. In that poll the Labour vote is 18% down on average on its 2017 vote of 40%. There were plenty of seats across the UK where Labour secured well under 18% in 2017, and in those the fall in its vote must mathematically be less than 18%.
UNS is far from perfect - but probably the best guide particularly as the 'swing' of 3.75% is not massive. Admittedly the Con to LD swing and Lab to LD swing is much bigger - but ,at the moment is largely a YouGov phenomenon. Most of the Labour seats at risk to the LDs are likely to be safe - with established candidates such as Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland not standing again.
Utter bollocks, must be teenagers writing this crap. Even wales had a bigger deficit with a much smaller revenue. Numbers also have Scotland as one of the highest spending in the world on defense, 5.7% of the budget, what moron worked that one out. So that would reduce in the billions, the deficit is dropping anyway even on the fake numbers and if you take out the false debt payments , paying for embassies , crossrail , HS2 etc, it would not be long till you were in surplus.
And finally, as was inevitable at some point, a Scottish sub-sample which shows Ian Murray losing his seat!
Actually Murray just holds his seat, SNP need a 16.5% swing from Labour to topple him, only a 13.5% swing on this subsample, though every other Labour seat goes and the LDs would be second to the SNP on seats in Scotland even if the Tories still second on votes
All 3 of them sharing less than a handful, what bloody difference does it make shuffling the donkeys colours.
On the basis of the Yougov poll - assuming UNS - Labour loses 34 seats to the Tories , 5 to the LDs and 6 to SNP. That would bring Labour down to 217 seats. The Tory gains are apartly offset by 14 losses to the LDs and circa 8 to the SNP. That generates a net gain of 12 seats bringing them to 329 - slightly below Cameron's 2015 total. In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
UNS cannot be applied in circumstances of extreme changes in the popular vote. In that poll the Labour vote is 18% down on average on its 2017 vote of 40%. There were plenty of seats across the UK where Labour secured well under 18% in 2017, and in those the fall in its vote must mathematically be less than 18%.
Yeah, I've seen a few maps on these weird numbers that produce outcomes in seats I just can't believe. F'rinstance I know the Stoke area is more Brexity and going in the Tory direction a bit, but I can't imagine all the seats going Tory. Also, St Albans is deffo looking like a LD target from Tories, but even on some of these strong Tory / weak LD numbers they are still predicted to flip it, and I find that less certain. I dunno how different models work, but I wonder if they're accounting Leave / Remain and EU results a bit favourably....
But Yougov is showing strong LD vote share and the Tory vote is much weaker than 2017. The problem the LDs face in St Albans is that Labour is also a significant force - having held the seat 1997 - 2005 . Their vote is not that likely to crumble tactically in favour of the Tory Little Helpers.
Comments
The polling with a split opposition is working in his favour.
The European elections were just an aberration.
I find myself assured still that our British leaders are still light years from answering this question in the affirmative, it is still totally absurd, although I'd rather it be utterly preposterous. Of course, if the answer were anywhere remotely near to a yes, I'd be unable to safely even raise such a topic here.
Brexit, as bad and as Juche as it could still be, is simply not a policy consideration which has any salience to the above.
Abroad things may be murkier, but we are still generally talking about the absurd and there is a long and honourable road yet for peaceful and democratic struggle in pretty much all places west of the old iron curtain.
Oh wait - are you actually in Scotland?
What is the position in other countries? I don't actually know.
Looks nailed on maj for Johnson,with split opposition.
1. A large majority in a referendum, well beyond that generally needed to settle general elections.
2. A PM and government committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way.
3. A majority in parliament committed to implementing the result of that referendum in a meaningful way.
4. Acceptance of the EU's subsequent demands that set the terms of how we leave, effectively meaning that we have to ask the EU's permission to leave in the absence of any acceptance that the UK can possibly leave prior to agreement on the subsequent relationship being reached.
5. A period of many years between the vote and actually leaving, at the end of which all of the necessary conditions will still have to be in place.
6. A majority in a second referendum just to check we got the result right the first time.
https://twitter.com/chefconsultant/status/1164812223614558208?s=21
But not entirely fair.
My biggest Brexit betting position is layer of 2019 No Deal.
There are routes to winning this even if I'm wrong about what the real Johnson plan is.
Con 32, Lab 22, LD 20, Brexit 12, Green 7, SNP 4
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8rjix1cm2t/TheTimes_190821_VI_w.pdf
https://twitter.com/manufacturingni/status/1164576907549204480?s=21
But anyway no matter - the question is will you be sanguine about NOT leaving on 31 Oct with negotiations continuing in an atmosphere of realpolitik?
Because if I'm calling this right that will be the situation you are faced with.
So anytime before November 14th is fine for Boris - afterwards it will be painful.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/fyre-festival-disaster-unfolded-bahamas-officials-have-site/
The developments over the last few days can I think be best interpreted as Johnson being successful in playing for time to enhance his prospects of heading off a VONC against him in parliament at the start of September in order to get Brexit over the line on 31st October.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1164820823124742144
Liberal Democracy run with an unfailing eye towards the wishes of the people so that small continuous change can be made to avoid seismic shifts is a great idea. Unfortunately we have neither the politicians nor the systems of state in place to have it work effectively and have not had for many years.
In terms of calling it, the thing I'm most confident about is that No Deal will not happen. An extension then flows from that as the most likely way to avoid it.
But yes you're right that it would not be an easy sell in the shires or Stoke. Or to the Steve Bakers. Farage playing merry hell is a given. So it must be combined with no election.
Perhaps an exotic face-saving way will be found to avoid both No Deal and an extension. That would surprise but not shock me.
Off you pop Stu!
Because they are not very good at anything? Yes! We can't have people using sharp knives...
As for an agenda, I have several which you well know
Agenda 1) Brexit is a huge mistake. Stop it now while we can
Agenda 2) The Tory party has become UKIP and is no longer fit for govt
I note your posting regarding YouGov. Are you the poster who has identified a "mode effect": a insistent difference between pollsters dependent on the mode they used? Mode effects have been good for getting in the past, as people tend to split the difference whereas they should just pick one mode and bet accordingly (it's working out which is the correct mode that's the problem).
If you are that poster, would you care to write a little thread header on it? I'd do it myself but conference is a week away and I have zero free time. I assume @TheScreamingEagles would publish it, tho obvs check with him first.
1. I mean, most countries have a 2/3rds threshold for large constitutional changes. Would this make things that I want, like voting changes, more difficult? Yes, but the reason is kinda useful. I have spoken about why this is before, but briefly, 2/3rds is considered a good number because any large constitutional change WILL have negative impacts and unforeseen impacts, and so knowing that a large majority are in favour of it gives politician cover when those negative impacts occur. Also, with a 2/3rds majority the remaining third are more likely to accept the result. Also, with a 2/3rds majority, you are likely to find a simple majority who all agree on one implementation of that large constitutional change, whereas if you only have a simple majority in favour of that change it is unlikely anyone will agree on the how. Large constitutional change is not equal to GE.
2. The reason we don't have that is because politicians are aware that a 52/48 majority does not create a stable vote winning coalition of voters, especially because many within that 52 have different visions of what is Brexit and what is BINO.
3. Again, see point 2 and 1.
4. So this is the "why can't we discuss our future relationship at the same time as leaving?" bit. I mean, maybe that does make more sense. I'll give you that one. But if that was our position, why didn't uber Brexiteer David Davis hold out on it like he promised?
5. Yeah, large constitutional changes take time. Especially ones that existed in such a way that we have integrated our economy with it for 40 years. That seems reasonable, unless you want lots of chaos. Granted, the past 3 years have been pretty bad, but just yoinking us out of the EU on results day would have been infinitely worse.
6. In the event of a 2/3rds majority in the first ref, I would say this is unnecessary, although it would still be a stamp of approval that no government who had actually negotiated a good deal should be afraid of. In our current reality the need for a second referendum is precisely because the first one was 52/48 and we know that the coalition of voters who made up that original 52% disagree with one another about what a successful Brexit is, and therefore we would be making large constitutional changes based on a minority of people and what they want.
This is why I favour revoke now.
If he had been from a non-EU country to get here in the first place he would have had to meet clear conditions in order to first be granted a visa and then to renew a visa that would have allowed him to stay in this country for a period of 5+ years, after which he would be entitled to apply for "indefinite leave to remain" and after which he could apply for full UK citizenship if he chose. Instead, he has been here for 15 years without requiring a visa even though on that evidence he would clearly have qualified for one based on his employment circumstances without recourse to public funds. What there should be but appears to be lacking is some means to retrospectively assess the circumstances of his past residence in the UK, so that he could be deemed to have already met the criteria for issuing of a visa for a period of 5+ years, and thus be granted immediate indefinite leave to remain and as such open up a fast track to subsequent UK citizenship.
The issue has nothing to do with the merits of the UK leaving or not. As such it is not a question that should divide Remainers and Leavers. What is at issue is that the government and Home Office have disregarded the period and circumstances of his lengthy past residence, which is a political choice that I disagree with and is one that the decision to leave did not require them to make. The only caveat I would make to that is that in return I would expect UK citizens living in the EU in similar circumstances to also be treated the same by their host countries.
On today's Yougov poll figures Boris gets a Tory majority of 76 on a 4% swing from Labour to the Tories with 363 Tories, 182 Labour and 48 LD MPs based on electoral calculus
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=32&LAB=22&LIB=20&Brexit=12&Green=7&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1164856843144966144?s=20
Apology accepted, I guess..
If that tweeter is not a middle class activist who knows nothing of what is really mattering to the working class, I will eat my hat.
It is why Theresa May should have set up the same commission before triggering Article 50.
It is why Boris should have set up a commission before settling on a date plucked from thin air by President Macron.
Two months to go and Leavers still chase unicorn Brexits, opposed by Remainers in search of a unicorn GNU. What a time to be alive.
But there's no point in Remainers voting for it if Leavers won't accept it. If they won't compromise then neither will I.
In reality, I suspect that Labour would hang on in 4 of the 5 seats at risk to the LDs - only Sheffield Hallam would be likely to fall.
Without the prompt I would expect the result of the new YouGov poll to have been something along the lines of Con 35, Lab 24, LD 20, Brexit 9, Green 5. i.e. quite close to the last poll from Ipsos Mori who prompt for neither. With a further GE squeeze in circumstances where Johnson had just taken the UK out you could be looking at something like Con 38, Lab 25, LD 21, Brexit 6, Green 3.
Obviously, some will argue that the Conservative vote would be far lower because the reality of the immediate aftermath of leaving prior to securing a full trade agreement will have been proved to be every bit as bad as they warned of. And others will argue that the Conservative vote would be higher because the immediate aftermath of leaving will have been proved to be nothing like people had been conditioned to expect.
An analogy to confuse things? Yes, I think so.
If a person wishes for assistance to end their days it is not enough merely that they wish to die. They must prove they are of sound mind AND are properly informed of their condition and treatment options and prognosis AND have a good understanding of what this means for them AND for it to be judged reasonable that they want to avoid it - and then all of the foregoing must be concurred with by at least two competent and relevant professionals.
And would we have it any other way? Surely not.
£5 ONO for the lot.