politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The flaw in going into an election about “the will of the people” is that those thinking Brexit was wrong have a 6% lead
This polling Tracker from YouGov has been asked at least twice a month since the 2016 referendum and the big trend is that there has been a shift from those thinking Brexit was right to those thinking that brexit was wrong.
The crucial percentage however is those that voted for No Deal.
We don't know what it was back then, because the Leave Campaign pretty much disavowed the idea at the time. We do however have a pretty good idea what it is now, so we can judge from that how much difficulty BJ would have at a GE, whether before or after Brexit.
Before too many tears are shed about Ruth lets not forget her involvement in the 2017 general election when she and Theresa thought it would be a good idea to tell elderly English voters they were going to take their fuel allowance off them but carry on giving it to elderly Scottish voters.
As I correctly identified on here on the day of the announcement, that was the beginning of the end of Theresa May's majority and Ruth Davidson was heavily involved in the fiasco...
Good to see Priti sorting out the surge of Channel crossings by illegal migrants today. Whose got the tankers and hostages Iran illegally holding top of their to do list, what’s being done about that? We’ve capitulated and freed their tanker.
Okay, on topic, let’s not get sidetracked here: There’s only one action very top of Boris to do list, whats the alternate plan for the backstop. Boris has to turn round that 6 point deficit. He has to make brexit right. He has to make brexit work.
The backstop is there to avoid a hard border across Ireland when UK and EU are operating different customs regimes. The hard border not only breaks treaties signed up to by the UK government, in practice it will become focal for protest, likely end up with British troops manning it to protect it. The previous PMs negotiation came up with this backstop, did not come up with an alternative even in face of mortal destruction of her political career. Boris governments official policy is not “we don’t like the backstop so no backstop” the only honest policy and realistic negotiation is an alternative plan to be agreed with EU replacing proposed backstop, indeed something Boris with customary oomph agreed to have settled in just 30 days last week accepting it was up to Britain to provide a solution, he said he was "more than happy" with the "blistering timetable" Merkel had set out.
So Boris, the EU heads of state and negotiators, the British people, infact the whole world is waiting to hear your plan for alternative backstop, your timetable is ticking down. Where’s your backstop alternative?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for a republican to love his country - indeed he might love it more as a consequence of it having ceased to be a monarchy.
You're late to the game but to repeat, he cannot love it if he wants to change its constitution fundamentally. He would love what it might become and he might love the potential for it to be something else, but as currently constituted he does not love it.
But we've moved on, everyone who commented agreed that I was right.
The arrogance of your last sentence is breathtaking
...People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
I thought of "Remains of the Day" when I started reading your post, so a pleasant surprise when I reached the end of the post
There is also Philip K Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" (the book, not the trashy TV version) in which the Nazis run Europe and East of the Rockies and there is very little to reccommend the fascist SoB's
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for a republican to love his country - indeed he might love it more as a consequence of it having ceased to be a monarchy.
You're late to the game but to repeat, he cannot love it if he wants to change its constitution fundamentally. He would love what it might become and he might love the potential for it to be something else, but as currently constituted he does not love it.
But we've moved on, everyone who commented agreed that I was right.
The arrogance of your last sentence is breathtaking
I am sure you know it already but Topping is talking nonsense, of course you can be a patriot who wants changes.
Guess it would have to Corbyn though. He's less of a proven liar and he is not actively selling his country down the river, yet.
With a big majority Johnson is the least worst choice. With a small majority Corbyn is the least worst choice. In a hung parliament, hopefully someone else can come to the fore.
That is a false question because only two options are given. Pollsters need to catch up with what's been happening and include maybe 3 or 4 possible prime ministers
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for a republican to love his country - indeed he might love it more as a consequence of it having ceased to be a monarchy.
You're late to the game but to repeat, he cannot love it if he wants to change its constitution fundamentally. He would love what it might become and he might love the potential for it to be something else, but as currently constituted he does not love it.
But we've moved on, everyone who commented agreed that I was right.
The arrogance of your last sentence is breathtaking
I am sure you know it already but Topping is talking nonsense, of course you can be a patriot who wants changes.
Of course he is and was widely criticised for his nonsense
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
Good to see Priti sorting out the surge of Channel crossings by illegal migrants today. Whose got the tankers and hostages Iran illegally holding top of their to do list, what’s being done about that? We’ve capitulated and freed their tanker.
Okay, on topic, let’s not get sidetracked here: There’s only one action very top of Boris to do list, whats the alternate plan for the backstop. Boris has to turn round that 6 point deficit. He has to make brexit right. He has to make brexit work.
The backstop is there to avoid a hard border across Ireland when UK and EU are operating different customs regimes. The hard border not only breaks treaties signed up to by the UK government, in practice it will become focal for protest, likely end up with British troops manning it to protect it. The previous PMs negotiation came up with this backstop, did not come up with an alternative even in face of mortal destruction of her political career. Boris governments official policy is not “we don’t like the backstop so no backstop” the only honest policy and realistic negotiation is an alternative plan to be agreed with EU replacing proposed backstop, indeed something Boris with customary oomph agreed to have settled in just 30 days last week accepting it was up to Britain to provide a solution, he said he was "more than happy" with the "blistering timetable" Merkel had set out.
So Boris, the EU heads of state and negotiators, the British people, infact the whole world is waiting to hear your plan for alternative backstop, your timetable is ticking down. Where’s your backstop alternative?
Heheh - keep on plugging away (shame Boris is not reading PB though).
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
I for one would actively campaign for Don't Know. If Refused puts together a decent policy offering, I could be swayed in that direction.
If the Don't Knows Don't Vote, and so are excluded, that gives Boris exactly the same level of support in the country as he got in the Tory leadership election. 66%.
» show previous quotes Definitely a huge loss. However as she says, the election successes pale into insignificance compared to IndyRef, and this decision puts her in a good position to play a major role in any future IndyRef, with her credibility untarnished by Brexit/Boris. Could be quite a smart move. And, actually, I'm quite sure she is genuine about the family considerations.
Bollox and already well tarnished, another one defeated by their blind opposition to SNP rather than having aspirations and policies for Scotland. Will have a think tank / cushy public service number lined up for sure. She is not stupid and can see that she has no chance of going anywhere in politics in Scotland and now that UK is a desert for her she is off, only thing she was ever interested in was promoting herself.
Guess it would have to Corbyn though. He's less of a proven liar and he is not actively selling his country down the river, yet.
With a big majority Johnson is the least worst choice. With a small majority Corbyn is the least worst choice. In a hung parliament, hopefully someone else can come to the fore.
Yes, I get that. Your enemy then is FPTP. You can't vote for a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
No tears. I am happy for Brexit to be exposed as an anti-democratic fiasco, totally owned by the Tories.
Likewise. I am beginning to suspect that we do not even have to reach "No Deal" for the fiasco and blame game to commence. Businesses are already beginning to feel the effects and the posturing of the current Govt are simply stoking peoples' fears as well as firing up the Nationalists and Xenophobes
That is a false question because only two options are given. Pollsters need to catch up with what's been happening and include maybe 3 or 4 possible prime ministers
For the next election we should put all the PM candidates and anyone else who fancies having a go in a locked house, give them relevant tasks like 'agree a workable Brexit approach', 'demonstrate commitment to the constitution', 'work out how many children you've had' etc. etc.
That is a false question because only two options are given. Pollsters need to catch up with what's been happening and include maybe 3 or 4 possible prime ministers
I suspect that the latest developments may see some movement here, too.
Guess it would have to Corbyn though. He's less of a proven liar and he is not actively selling his country down the river, yet.
With a big majority Johnson is the least worst choice. With a small majority Corbyn is the least worst choice. In a hung parliament, hopefully someone else can come to the fore.
Yes, I get that. Your enemy then is FPTP. You can't vote for a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
When given rubbish to vote for, the public have got close to hung parliaments despite FPTP. I expect that to continue.
The first of Labour and Tories to offer a mainstream, inclusive manifesto and leadership shall win a landslide, but that is probably two or three GEs away.
Before too many tears are shed about Ruth lets not forget her involvement in the 2017 general election when she and Theresa thought it would be a good idea to tell elderly English voters they were going to take their fuel allowance off them but carry on giving it to elderly Scottish voters.
As I correctly identified on here on the day of the announcement, that was the beginning of the end of Theresa May's majority and Ruth Davidson was heavily involved in the fiasco...
GIN, morning. Correct she was useless, only good at soundbites and patsy interviews. Never had an original thought and an arse licker to London party. Shows how dire the rest of the Tories are that they had her as the Messiah. She will pop up with a well paid cushy number soon enough.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
Before too many tears are shed about Ruth lets not forget her involvement in the 2017 general election when she and Theresa thought it would be a good idea to tell elderly English voters they were going to take their fuel allowance off them but carry on giving it to elderly Scottish voters.
As I correctly identified on here on the day of the announcement, that was the beginning of the end of Theresa May's majority and Ruth Davidson was heavily involved in the fiasco...
GIN, morning. Correct she was useless, only good at soundbites and patsy interviews. Never had an original thought and an arse licker to London party. Shows how dire the rest of the Tories are that they had her as the Messiah. She will pop up with a well paid cushy number soon enough.
Tell it like it is Malcolm. No hiding behind innuendo and hyperbole please
And key is if the 'dont knows' swing behind get it done, I'm bored with brexit
That does not exactly end the agony though, does it?
Nothing will. We have a lifetime of this nonsense ahead whether we are in or out
On balance, I should say that a No Deal Brexit would be the quickest and most dramatic way to bring the nonsense to an end, but at very considerable cost and not at all in the way that many who supported it might imagine.
There is a definite part of me that wants this to happen, but it's childishness and the reality wouldn't be funny.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Nothing sad about it.
Ruth Davidson has done a lot for the union [and I say that as an opponent of the union] she should be recognised and respected for it. Even though I was on opposite sides to her [and the bulk of my party] during the referendum I could respect her for it.
Just because Brexit is more important than the union doesn't change that.
Before too many tears are shed about Ruth lets not forget her involvement in the 2017 general election when she and Theresa thought it would be a good idea to tell elderly English voters they were going to take their fuel allowance off them but carry on giving it to elderly Scottish voters.
As I correctly identified on here on the day of the announcement, that was the beginning of the end of Theresa May's majority and Ruth Davidson was heavily involved in the fiasco...
GIN, morning. Correct she was useless, only good at soundbites and patsy interviews. Never had an original thought and an arse licker to London party. Shows how dire the rest of the Tories are that they had her as the Messiah. She will pop up with a well paid cushy number soon enough.
Tell it like it is Malcolm. No hiding behind innuendo and hyperbole please
I'll always be fond of Ruth Davidson, met her once, very engaging company with the kind of humour you'd expect from me*
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
Boris and co are deliberately setting up a platform much broader than Brexit though. I wouldn’t say it was clever, as a competent Tory party would have done it in 2017, but it may work. Corbyn is hardly going to outbid him on police numbers and he might do the 2015 trick of waiting for Labour to name a number on NHS spending, then beating it.
The trouble with saying “well he won’t deliver” is that it’s rather hard to sustain that message AND attack him for doing everything he can, by fair means or foul, to deliver Brexit.
And key is if the 'dont knows' swing behind get it done, I'm bored with brexit
That does not exactly end the agony though, does it?
Nothing will. We have a lifetime of this nonsense ahead whether we are in or out
On balance, I should say that a No Deal Brexit would be the quickest and most dramatic way to bring the nonsense to an end, but at very considerable cost and not at all in the way that many who supported it might imagine.
There is a definite part of me that wants this to happen, but it's childishness and the reality wouldn't be funny.
There would be more merit in the get no deal over and done with if the LOTO was not Corbyn! Going through no deal and Boris shambles followed by Corbyn disasters is the true worst case double whammy. The Conservative party seem determined to deliver this double whammy for some reason.
Let's assume those odd breeds, Tory remainers and Labour/LD/SNP/Green leavers are broadly cancelling. This helps us simplify :
Wrong 41, right 47 when rounded to 100% total 47 - 53 rounded.
Taking the last 4 polls from " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election " source currently the leave vote is split 33-14 Tory/Brexit averaging out. Kantar is better for the Tories but lets ignore it as an outlier of what might be possible if Johnson runs a good campaign and hoovers the Nige vote. The split there is 42-5, still summing to 47%.
The remain vote is split 7 Green, 18 LD, 23 Lab, 4 SNP, 1 Plaid.
We know SNP support is solid, so the 5% nationalist vote (Ex NI) won't change so much. Which means we're looking at 47-48 for the potential Tory & Lab pools.
Green support is likely soft, but the remainder is Lib Dem votes that Labour can eat into, and Brexit votes the Tories can munch on. As of now the Tories are 9 pts ahead in this analysis, not votes cast but polling, the best we have, - it might be a smaller pool but the margin above Labour is very very important as there are scores of Lab-Tory marginals in determining seat count.
Unless Labour can really get a squeeze on, they're not in a great place.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
The only thing that is tortured is your argument. Exchange constitutional monarchy with the Troubles or a part of the constitution that caused the Troubles and was changed with the GFA. Could a patriot during the Troubles love the country but still be wanting to see changes?
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchyhas direct rule of Northern Ireland from Westminster. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
gah! The US if full of people who love their country *as currently constituted*. Would you call a good ol' boy a US patriot if he wanted Kim Jong-Un as Supreme Leader?
And key is if the 'dont knows' swing behind get it done, I'm bored with brexit
That does not exactly end the agony though, does it?
Nothing will. We have a lifetime of this nonsense ahead whether we are in or out
On balance, I should say that a No Deal Brexit would be the quickest and most dramatic way to bring the nonsense to an end, but at very considerable cost and not at all in the way that many who supported it might imagine.
There is a definite part of me that wants this to happen, but it's childishness and the reality wouldn't be funny.
There would be more merit in the get no deal over and done with if the LOTO was not Corbyn! Going through no deal and Boris shambles followed by Corbyn disasters is the true worst case double whammy. The Conservative party seem determined to deliver this double whammy for some reason.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
Indeed. But does anyone doubt their patriotism? (Which was the point of the comment). I think the USA is a very discriminatory place and I have no desire to see Boris imprting some of their practices or methods here via an FTA which will see an erosion of standards.
Does anyone believe that the world's most expensive healthcare system will work well with the NHS?
Seems that with YouGov now giving Conservatives a 12% lead over Labour and Boris a 20% lead over Corbyn the 6% lead mentioned in the article is a pointless red herring. Anyway that is split between numerous parties - we could be into 100 - 200 seat Conservative majority territory very soon come an election.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
No Deal seems to be the least popular positive choice, as well as the most disliked one. Again, this is going to begin to matter a lot politically once we are living through it.
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
It is possible - even probable - that if MPs voted to delay Brexit with no clear purpose in mind, the EU could politely decline to furnish that delay, and we'd still be out on our ear, without a deal, on 31 October.
If MPs want to stop Johnson's no-deal, it is high time they decided what they want instead.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
Indeed. But does anyone doubt their patriotism? (Which was the point of the comment). I think the USA is a very discriminatory place and I have no desire to see Boris imprting some of their practices or methods here via an FTA which will see an erosion of standards.
Does anyone believe that the world's most expensive healthcare system will work well with the NHS?
It will for the Tories wallets which is all they would care about
Seems that with YouGov now giving Conservatives a 12% lead over Labour and Boris a 20% lead over Corbyn the 6% lead mentioned in the article is a pointless red herring. Anyway that is split between numerous parties - we could be into 100 - 200 seat Conservative majority territory very soon come an election.
Actually it isn't. The Yougov conforms to the analysis I have provided upthread. And it's bad news for Labour.
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
The only thing that is tortured is your argument. Exchange constitutional monarchy with the Troubles or a part of the constitution that caused the Troubles and was changed with the GFA. Could a patriot during the Troubles love the country but still be wanting to see changes?
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchyhas direct rule of Northern Ireland from Westminster. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
To misquote the Bible, "What is Britain, that thou are mindful of him?"
Oh Dear, Murdo who has been defeated 7 times trying to get elected , yet supped at the public teat each time by getting a losers list seat. A perfect leader for the Scottish pretend Tory party. Contribution for his almost £1M lottery win , some dire tweets about WATP
OT, are there any free software things out there for turning polling data into seat projections? There are so many moving parts that weren't there before it feels like it would be good to have a model that various people could tweak and share.
Unless they've fixed it then T8 at Zandvoort is a bumpy, off-camber nightmare. I spun my 986.2 Boxster there at about 190km/h and the chassis flexed so much in the ensuing shenanigans the windscreen popped out.
This probably helped Davidson throw in the towel, imagine being seen as a peer of a donkey like this. Labour polling at 9% and he will not "allow" us to have a referendum, deluded. The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government. However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
I have to say although I’d define myself as a Unionist, I think it means something very different to me than it seem to mean to many English people. I see no point in a union without consent and if the Scottish Gvt is elected on a manifesto of having a referendum it should have one. Come the campaign I then think English Unionists should basically say “we love being in a union with you but it’s your choice” and leave it to Scots to decide. Anything else sounds a bit imperialist to me.
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
@HYUFD will conveniently ignore this as it does not suit his agenda.
Let's play the "Think Like HYUFD" game. I'm going to go with:
No because the total fairly or very bad for no deal is 49% which is still short of a majority and is only slightly more than the 48% who voted for remain in 2016 and if you add all the people who aren't opposed to no deal or may's deal or soft brexit you get 136% which is 34 times the majority that leave got over remain in 2016
Which is pretty well the position I've favoured since the Brexit vote, as it seemed pretty obvious back then.
Me too. When people blame Remainer MPs for not voting for May's deal, they pretend that May's deal is a compromise, rather than what it is -- hard Brexit. If May had put forward a genuine compromise with a Norway style deal we would have left by now with a deal. She couldn't because she put party before country, and that is why we are now all in the shit.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Is the US a great example of a republic?
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
Indeed. But does anyone doubt their patriotism? (Which was the point of the comment). I think the USA is a very discriminatory place and I have no desire to see Boris imprting some of their practices or methods here via an FTA which will see an erosion of standards.
Does anyone believe that the world's most expensive healthcare system will work well with the NHS?
It will for the Tories wallets which is all they would care about
That is absolutely absurd and is an argument against any changes at all as all changes disrupt how the country is currently constituted.
That is like suggesting a patriot during the Troubles would have opposed the GFA as the Troubles and an absence of power sharing and military in NI and no Stormont was how the country was currently constituted.
That is prima facie absurd.
What?
Your analogy is so tortured I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
The only thing that is tortured is your argument. Exchange constitutional monarchy with the Troubles or a part of the constitution that caused the Troubles and was changed with the GFA. Could a patriot during the Troubles love the country but still be wanting to see changes?
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchyhas direct rule of Northern Ireland from Westminster. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
The NI debate is held within the context of the constitutional monarchy that the United Kingdom is. It is a debate about territory and a legitimate debate at that. It doesn't change the constitutional make up of the United Kingdom.
Comments
We don't know what it was back then, because the Leave Campaign pretty much disavowed the idea at the time. We do however have a pretty good idea what it is now, so we can judge from that how much difficulty BJ would have at a GE, whether before or after Brexit.
As I correctly identified on here on the day of the announcement, that was the beginning of the end of Theresa May's majority and Ruth Davidson was heavily involved in the fiasco...
Okay, on topic, let’s not get sidetracked here: There’s only one action very top of Boris to do list, whats the alternate plan for the backstop. Boris has to turn round that 6 point deficit. He has to make brexit right. He has to make brexit work.
The backstop is there to avoid a hard border across Ireland when UK and EU are operating different customs regimes. The hard border not only breaks treaties signed up to by the UK government, in practice it will become focal for protest, likely end up with British troops manning it to protect it. The previous PMs negotiation came up with this backstop, did not come up with an alternative even in face of mortal destruction of her political career. Boris governments official policy is not “we don’t like the backstop so no backstop” the only honest policy and realistic negotiation is an alternative plan to be agreed with EU replacing proposed backstop, indeed something Boris with customary oomph agreed to have settled in just 30 days last week accepting it was up to Britain to provide a solution, he said he was "more than happy" with the "blistering timetable" Merkel had set out.
So Boris, the EU heads of state and negotiators, the British people, infact the whole world is waiting to hear your plan for alternative backstop, your timetable is ticking down. Where’s your backstop alternative?
Guess it would have to Corbyn though. He's less of a proven liar and he is not actively selling his country down the river, yet.
There is also Philip K Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" (the book, not the trashy TV version) in which the Nazis run Europe and East of the Rockies and there is very little to reccommend the fascist SoB's
With a small majority Corbyn is the least worst choice.
In a hung parliament, hopefully someone else can come to the fore.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Understandable.
I wake up to find Brexit has driven a stalwart Tory yeoman like Big G to flirt with republicanism!
Vladimir Vladimirovich must be laughing his manly tits off!
Burgessian said:
» show previous quotes
Definitely a huge loss.
However as she says, the election successes pale into insignificance compared to IndyRef, and this decision puts her in a good position to play a major role in any future IndyRef, with her credibility untarnished by Brexit/Boris.
Could be quite a smart move.
And, actually, I'm quite sure she is genuine about the family considerations.
Bollox and already well tarnished, another one defeated by their blind opposition to SNP rather than having aspirations and policies for Scotland. Will have a think tank / cushy public service number lined up for sure. She is not stupid and can see that she has no chance of going anywhere in politics in Scotland and now that UK is a desert for her she is off, only thing she was ever interested in was promoting herself.
Then get the public to vote them off one by one.
Gary Lineker would probably walk it!
The first of Labour and Tories to offer a mainstream, inclusive manifesto and leadership shall win a landslide, but that is probably two or three GEs away.
They are very divided nation with lots of fundamental untackled problems, and a head of state who is a politician widely hated outside his base.
Sad.
There is a definite part of me that wants this to happen, but it's childishness and the reality wouldn't be funny.
Ruth Davidson has done a lot for the union [and I say that as an opponent of the union] she should be recognised and respected for it. Even though I was on opposite sides to her [and the bulk of my party] during the referendum I could respect her for it.
Just because Brexit is more important than the union doesn't change that.
In the 'which party would you vote for tomorrow' question, would not vote was 10%, and don't know 17%.
Bit less than 36%...
https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1167013357620215809
She was also responsible for some great wining bets and tips, the 8/1 @AlastairMeeks tipped on election day on the SNP to lose their majority in 2016 was great as was [legendary modesty klaxon] the 20/1 winner I tipped on the Tories winning 9.5 or more seats in Scotland at GE2017.
*Her joke in 2016 about the conservatives massive Johnson pulling out is burned on my memory.
The trouble with saying “well he won’t deliver” is that it’s rather hard to sustain that message AND attack him for doing everything he can, by fair means or foul, to deliver Brexit.
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1166983828675747845
Wrong 41, right 47 when rounded to 100% total 47 - 53 rounded.
Taking the last 4 polls from " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election " source currently the leave vote is split 33-14 Tory/Brexit averaging out. Kantar is better for the Tories but lets ignore it as an outlier of what might be possible if Johnson runs a good campaign and hoovers the Nige vote. The split there is 42-5, still summing to 47%.
The remain vote is split 7 Green, 18 LD, 23 Lab, 4 SNP, 1 Plaid.
We know SNP support is solid, so the 5% nationalist vote (Ex NI) won't change so much. Which means we're looking at 47-48 for the potential Tory & Lab pools.
Green support is likely soft, but the remainder is Lib Dem votes that Labour can eat into, and Brexit votes the Tories can munch on. As of now the Tories are 9 pts ahead in this analysis, not votes cast but polling, the best we have, - it might be a smaller pool but the margin above Labour is very very important as there are scores of Lab-Tory marginals in determining seat count.
Unless Labour can really get a squeeze on, they're not in a great place.
Let me put it this way. Britain is a constitutional monarchy has direct rule of Northern Ireland from Westminster. Patriots love that (I don't particularly like the word patriot either btw). They love their country. They might choose to fight for it. But they can't then say they want to fundamentally change its constitution while still loving it because then what do they love about it?
Does anyone believe that the world's most expensive healthcare system will work well with the NHS?
The leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Richard Leonard, has reached an agreement with Jeremy Corbyn over the timing of any second Scottish independence referendum under a UK Labour government.
After weeks of internal rows about a second vote, the two leaders have reached a deal that would see no referendum granted in the “formative years” of an incoming Labour government.
However, Mr Leonard last night said that he and Mr Corbyn had reached an accord on the issue. He said: “Jeremy and I have agreed that, during the formative years of an incoming Labour government, we would not sanction a Section 30 order to allow a further referendum on Scottish independence to take place.”
If MPs want to stop Johnson's no-deal, it is high time they decided what they want instead.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-08-29/if-mps-vote-for-the-6-month-brexit-delay-they-want-johnson-will-ignore-them/
Hardly a surprise - he's a decent driver who doesn't rock the boat, and only Wolff favoured a change.
It’s a view...
Where you and I might differ is that I think the Union could win a referendum on that basis, and would do better sold as a positive without all the silly “you’ll fall into the sea if you leave” nonsense, but it should be tested. One referendum per mandate by winning a majority at Holyrood seems fair to me.
No because the total fairly or very bad for no deal is 49% which is still short of a majority and is only slightly more than the 48% who voted for remain in 2016 and if you add all the people who aren't opposed to no deal or may's deal or soft brexit you get 136% which is 34 times the majority that leave got over remain in 2016
How true