Interested to read yesterday that LDs and Tories in informal talks to try and prevent an SNP Natwash of the Scottish seats. Presumably something along the lines of free run in Fife, and the 3 non shetland seats in return for free run in berwickshire, dumfriesshire and a couple of the NE seats?
They are a bunch of losers , unable to win anything without cheating, your typical unionists.
Now pacts, official or otherwise, is cheating? You're becoming your own parody.
That said I dont imagine there will be any such free runs. They fear a backlash too much to cooperate like that.
You may have very low standards, I will not join you. If their pretendy useless subregional parties cannot win on their own merit then they should give it up. Fixing it by vote swapping is the sign of rogues and just what you would expect from these losers. No policies no principles and no scruples, cheating lying no-marks.
Morning, Malc. While on the topic of 'regional' parties, have you seen this?
Morning Carnyx, I had not seen it , thanks for pointing it out. Things do seem to be moving in right direction , just need to get enough people away from the ingrained opinions that they are too poor and too stupid to run their own affairs and need those absolute clowns in Westminster to spend their money for them.
How would they do a frictionless border between England and an EU Scotland ? Asking for an Irish friend.
The same way they plan to do the Irish one perhaps, would have thought your Irish friend could have filled you in. Given we have no GFA and no troubles it would be a simple matter to arrange and if not there are only two major roads in and out of Scotland ( maybe 3 other minor ones) thanks to unionists spending all our money down south. Stopping a very minimum of vehicles would be a minor irritant if England was so petty and nasty it wanted to do so. Given they would be crapping themselves about losing EU trade if they did their usual heavy handed unionist stuff I doubt they would cut off their nose to spite their face.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things are relative. He did lose but we'd been told they would go massively backwards and they didnt. Of course labour are giving him another go. If BXP stir up again he actually has a chance to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
1.In a binary contest there is no third way. It was a contest based on lies. 2.Popuist slogans with our population are the only ones that work. Look at the effect of Turkey in the Leave vote 3.Johnson goes one step further. He has no interest in Brexit whatsoever other than what it does to his career. Witness David Cameron
The most important of which is that the Conservative Party withdrew the whip from Gyimah before he defected to the Lib Dems. They threw him out, and are now reaping the consequences.
'Consequences'? I would suggest 'Benefit' would be more appropriate.
I am struggling to find many Conservatives who are lamenting the loss of Gymiah or Soubry or Woolaston...and they certainly will be providing whatever encouragement necessary for Grieve to find a home where he will be more comfortable.
The LD's are going to rue the day they started taking in the dross other parties don't want...trouble causers will be trouble causers whatever colour rosette you pin on them.
One of the few things Boris has achieved is getting rid of some dross from the Tory party.
The value of Sam Gyimah to the Lib Dems is that he tells disillusioned Tory voters, it's OK to switch to the Lib Dems.
I doubt 1 normal person in 100 could tell you who Sam Gyimah is.
In fact, 1 voter in 1000 prior to him being sacked for disloyalty.
Political anoraks for whom events like Gymiah moving are seismic don't seem to grasp that 99.9% of voters will have no idea...and won't care.
It is the really top level information battle that needs to be won, not the discussion about some no-mark who even we will have forgotten about tomorrow.
Fair point. So the value of the defection is only to make the same point about Lib Dem substitution for Tories on values to political journalists and activists.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
I appreciate your position, but some compromise is needed. Remain is justified for two reasons. The information we have learned in the past three years and flaws in the 2016 vote. A referendum offering two specific outcomes, not vague concepts is the way forward.
Even if you believe a referendum can be repeated before the previous one being implemented, it can't take away the mandate of the first if the question is different and excludes the preferences of a majority of the winning side.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things are relative. He did lose but we'd been told they would go massively backwards and they didnt. Of course labour are giving him another go. If BXP stir up again he actually has a chance to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
Theres an argument there, but theres just no way MPs will contemplate that so it's a non starter. What's the least objectionable alternative?
I've been persuaded by the 'people didnt know' argument myself either. It may be true for a lot of people but remainers did tell everyone these things at the time.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Corbyn the accidental genius?!
Kind of Lefty post, profuse apologies to casino.
Not genius, but Labour internal democracy essentially a microcosm of the national debate incubating a way forward.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things are relative. He did lose but we'd been told they would go massively backwards and they didnt. Of course labour are giving him another go. If BXP stir up again he actually has a chance to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
Really, you think Corbyn will stick it out if they lose? Interesting. I know it used to be common, and he did technically lose last time, but would the members revolt?
The value of Sam Gyimah to the Lib Dems is that he tells disillusioned Tory voters, it's OK to switch to the Lib Dems.
I doubt 1 normal person in 100 could tell you who Sam Gyimah is.
In fact, 1 voter in 1000 prior to him being sacked for disloyalty.
Political anoraks for whom events like Gymiah moving are seismic don't seem to grasp that 99.9% of voters will have no idea...and won't care.
It is the really top level information battle that needs to be won, not the discussion about some no-mark who even we will have forgotten about tomorrow.
Then when you listen to the little pipsqueak , you really know he is a useless halfwit with his head up his own arse.
How many 'Conservatives' do you know? More particularly, how many 'Conservatives' do you know who don't have a shrine to Farage in their bedrooms?
I couldn't give you an exact number of course but a lot.
Oddly though my deeper friendships are with those I wouldn't necessarily call political bedfellows, including one good female friend whose application to join the UK Communist Party was rejected because she owns a second property, her arguments that it was a farm in Normandy so should be exempt fell on deaf (red) ears.
I picked up the jibe about Farage and all I can say is that it is an unfortunate result of the refusal of the establishment over the years to listen to the frustrations of the (mostly) working class that has fuelled the rise of Farage.
The same establishment seem intent on putting boosters under his popularity with the path they are on.
I hope a sensible deal is done which will remove Farage from the political picture.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things are relative. He did lose but we'd been told they would go massively backwards and they didnt. Of course labour are giving him another go. If BXP stir up again he actually has a chance to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
Really, you think Corbyn will stick it out if they lose? Interesting. I know it used to be common, and he did technically lose last time, but would the members revolt?
They have suffered him for years, no sign of anyone popping up that could herd the sheep away from current position.
My concern is for the longer term. A lot of very angry people will be very upset if they have Brexit snatched from them.
As a strident Remainer Brexit has to be delivered, then we pick up the pieces.
Revoke is a good strategy for pinning down the hardcore Remain vote, but a hopeless strategy for government - it would be directly telling 52% of the country that democracy does not work, which would do serious structural damage to British society. Oddly, it's a retreat in ambition, from supposedly hoping to form a government to simply trying to maximise the core vote.
I'm in coalition with LibDem colleagues locally. I've more or less forgotten the Tory coalition period and accept that the LibDems have moved on. I've been pretty relaxed about the various tactical voting schemes floating around. But this policy seems to me unwise and too focused on narrow party advantage.
In FPTP, people are as likely - more likely, probably - to vote against something than for it. There will be millions who oppose No Deal voting Tory at the next GE because they oppose Corbyn more, and many millions of others voting against No Deal because they dislike that more than Revoke or Jeremy Corbyn.
As I said further down, we only begin to return to normality in the UK once the Corbyn factor has been removed from equation.
John McDonnell mischievously accusing the Tories of adopting BINO, after the interview with Stephen Barclay this morning.
I’m not sure how fair that might be, as I fell asleep during the Barclay interview, but it was suggested that the new policy is to nominally leave while essentially continuing with all current European arrangements for a two years’ interim negotiation period.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
Which demonstrates the stupidity of this kind of referendum, including the first one. Nevertheless a second referendum with a Remain option is just as democratically valid as the first one. In fact I would say the ONLY point of second referendum is to include a Remain option, to undo the damage of the first one, in a democratic way. This, of course, depends on people voting for Remain, which they may not.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things e to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
Really, you think Corbyn will stick it out if they lose? Interesting. I know it used to be common, and he did technically lose last time, but would the members revolt?
They have suffered him for years, no sign of anyone popping up that could herd the sheep away from current position.
It was whether the sheep revolting that I wondered about though. If BoJo can win a majority does that make everyday members think 'hang on, this Corbyn guy really isn't that great'?
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
This would be an extreme act of bad faith by Bozo and could turn a lot of Tory MPs against him.
Whilst he’s plumbed the depths so far this move would seem bizarre. It would completely explode the party . And some Leavers want a deal .
All getting very convoluted. It's not been without success but playing clever games rather than just take Boris down surely opened up the risk that he can play clever games too.
This ones kind of critical of both sides casino, let me know if thats thinking for myself enough.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Corbyn the accidental genius?!
Kind of Lefty post, profuse apologies to casino.
Not genius, but Labour internal democracy essentially a microcosm of the national debate incubating a way forward.
Remain vs extremely soft Brexit does not cover the national debate.
The value of Sam Gyimah to the Lib Dems is that he tells disillusioned Tory voters, it's OK to switch to the Lib Dems.
I doubt 1 normal person in 100 could tell you who Sam Gyimah is.
In fact, 1 voter in 1000 prior to him being sacked for disloyalty.
Political anoraks for whom events like Gymiah moving are seismic don't seem to grasp that 99.9% of voters will have no idea...and won't care.
It is the really top level information battle that needs to be won, not the discussion about some no-mark who even we will have forgotten about tomorrow.
It doesn't matter. 99% of voters don't know the name of their own MP. What voters know is that someone they assume to be on the inside track of the Tory Party can't face staying with them any longer. People read into that all sorts of negative things....the party is dysfunctioal Johnson is a crap leader the party is on the way down....
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
This would be an extreme act of bad faith by Bozo and could turn a lot of Tory MPs against him.
Whilst he’s plumbed the depths so far this move would seem bizarre. It would completely explode the party . And some Leavers want a deal .
I thought he promised Leave Deal or no deal? That would be illogical.
Not sure what the public would think if MPs finally passed a deal and then the PM refused to implement it .
There might be a loophole but Bozo walks an election if he delivers a deal , if he goes full on no deal and it goes badly voters will punish him and he’ll be out .
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things are relative. He did lose but we'd been told they would go massively backwards and they didnt. Of course labour are giving him another go. If BXP stir up again he actually has a chance to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
Really, you think Corbyn will stick it out if they lose? Interesting. I know it used to be common, and he did technically lose last time, but would the members revolt?
The problem is that there is a leadership contest only if someone challenges him. In the absence of one, I think Corbyn will stick, limpet-like, to the leadership until there is a chance someone from his faction of the party is able to succeed him. And realistically, that is a long, long way off. Starmer is way out in front of the pack right now.
Of course, I would love to be wrong about this. The UK is not going to begin to get back on track until there is a Labour party capable of winning general elections.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
Which demonstrates the stupidity of this kind of referendum, including the first one. Nevertheless a second referendum with a Remain option is just as democratically valid as the first one. In fact I would say the ONLY point of second referendum is to include a Remain option, to undo the damage of the first one, in a democratic way. This, of course, depends on people voting for Remain, which they may not.
A second chance to vote for a rejected choice before the winning choice has been enacted would not be democratic no matter how you try to couch it.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Corbyn's superpower is supporting ideas that sound crazy at the time but which every agrees with 10-15 years later.
The value of Sam Gyimah to the Lib Dems is that he tells disillusioned Tory voters, it's OK to switch to the Lib Dems.
I doubt 1 normal person in 100 could tell you who Sam Gyimah is.
In fact, 1 voter in 1000 prior to him being sacked for disloyalty.
Political anoraks for whom events like Gymiah moving are seismic don't seem to grasp that 99.9% of voters will have no idea...and won't care.
It is the really top level information battle that needs to be won, not the discussion about some no-mark who even we will have forgotten about tomorrow.
Then when you listen to the little pipsqueak , you really know he is a useless halfwit with his head up his own arse.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
I appreciate your position, but some compromise is needed. Remain is justified for two reasons. The information we have learned in the past three years and flaws in the 2016 vote. A referendum offering two specific outcomes, not vague concepts is the way forward.
There would have been no compromise from Remain had they won even if by a closer margin. Besides fro a huge number of Leave voters - probably the majority, EFTA is a compromise. What you seem to be suggssting is that the only acceptable compromise is reversing the result.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
These things e to be largest party.
What will be interesting is how the party responds if Boris does win a majority. What will the MPs do? How will the Corbynite masses react?
He will quit. Hes old and tired, he will try and ensure a long bailey or McDonnell handover
But will that succeed is the critical question.
Long Bailey I think would succeed, McDonnell less likely to, he is very divisive and caustic
Rebecca Long-Bailey lacks experience, but she’s learning. She also looks the part - smart, well presented, self-made woman from the urban north. Labour could do a lot worse.
My very strong sense is that if there were a Labour leadership elecitn right now Kier Starmer would walk it. Which is why there will not be one for a very long while - even after Labour loses next time around.
Really, you think Corbyn will stick it out if they lose? Interesting. I know it used to be common, and he did technically lose last time, but would the members revolt?
They have suffered him for years, no sign of anyone popping up that could herd the sheep away from current position.
Whilst he’s plumbed the depths so far this move would seem bizarre. It would completely explode the party . And some Leavers want a deal .
All getting very convoluted. It's not been without success but playing clever games rather than just take Boris down surely opened up the risk that he can play clever games too.
This ones kind of critical of both sides casino, let me know if thats thinking for myself enough.
You would have expected them to be revolting by now, but given there is no alternative on show to cause a revolt I doubt it will happen in near future
The value of Sam Gyimah to the Lib Dems is that he tells disillusioned Tory voters, it's OK to switch to the Lib Dems.
I doubt 1 normal person in 100 could tell you who Sam Gyimah is.
In fact, 1 voter in 1000 prior to him being sacked for disloyalty.
Political anoraks for whom events like Gymiah moving are seismic don't seem to grasp that 99.9% of voters will have no idea...and won't care.
It is the really top level information battle that needs to be won, not the discussion about some no-mark who even we will have forgotten about tomorrow.
Then when you listen to the little pipsqueak , you really know he is a useless halfwit with his head up his own arse.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
Which demonstrates the stupidity of this kind of referendum, including the first one. Nevertheless a second referendum with a Remain option is just as democratically valid as the first one. In fact I would say the ONLY point of second referendum is to include a Remain option, to undo the damage of the first one, in a democratic way. This, of course, depends on people voting for Remain, which they may not.
A second chance to vote for a rejected choice before the winning choice has been enacted would not be democratic no matter how you try to couch it.
If the people vote for it on the second time of asking it's just as democratic as the initial rejection. I don't think any of this is sensible decision making, but you really are subverting the concept of democracy.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
I appreciate your position, but some compromise is needed. Remain is justified for two reasons. The information we have learned in the past three years and flaws in the 2016 vote. A referendum offering two specific outcomes, not vague concepts is the way forward.
There would have been no compromise from Remain had they won even if by a closer margin. Besides fro a huge number of Leave voters - probably the majority, EFTA is a compromise. What you seem to be suggssting is that the only acceptable compromise is reversing the result.
Not at all. Compromise is clearly needed. Reject the two extreme positions, hard Brexit and flat Revoke, and you are left with an EFTA style Brexit and a referendum.
My concern is for the longer term. A lot of very angry people will be very upset if they have Brexit snatched from them.
As a strident Remainer Brexit has to be delivered, then we pick up the pieces.
Revoke is a good strategy for pinning down the hardcore Remain vote, but a hopeless strategy for government - it would be directly telling 52% of the country that democracy does not work, which would do serious structural damage to British society. Oddly, it's a retreat in ambition, from supposedly hoping to form a government to simply trying to maximise the core vote.
I'm in coalition with LibDem colleagues locally. I've more or less forgotten the Tory coalition period and accept that the LibDems have moved on. I've been pretty relaxed about the various tactical voting schemes floating around. But this policy seems to me unwise and too focused on narrow party advantage.
In FPTP, people are as likely - more likely, probably - to vote against something than for it. There will be millions who oppose No Deal voting Tory at the next GE because they oppose Corbyn more, and many millions of others voting against No Deal because they dislike that more than Revoke or Jeremy Corbyn.
As I said further down, we only begin to return to normality in the UK once the Corbyn factor has been removed from equation.
I agree. If Labour cared about democracy Corbyn would have resigned when three quarters of the parliamentary party repreenting millions of voters voted against him.
A second chance to vote for a rejected choice before the winning choice has been enacted would not be democratic no matter how you try to couch it.
Apart from general elections where the "rejected choices" get another go if no majority can be formed, the "before the winning choice has been enacted" bit is also bollocks
We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure enacting it.
We voted for a unicorn. It's not undemocratic to ask people if they want to call off the hunt.
A second chance to vote for a rejected choice before the winning choice has been enacted would not be democratic no matter how you try to couch it.
Apart from general elections where the "rejected choices" get another go if no majority can be formed, the "before the winning choice has been enacted" bit is also bollocks
We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure enacting it.
We voted for a unicorn. It's not undemocratic to ask people if they want to call off the hunt.
Richard Tyndall has his own definition of “democracy”. However, you wouldn’t know it because it goes to another school.
I can see it has the virtue of clarity and perhaps electoral appeal, but if the Lib Dems can cancel Brexit on say 35% of the vote, then so can the Tories justify a No Deal.
Its not just the MPs that are leaving the Tory Party. Activists of decades are walking out. Moderate Conservatives hate what has happened under Johnson and they are not sitting on their hands- they are actively coming out to help the Liberal Democrats. On the doorsteps I am seeing numbers literally better than I have ever seen in nearly 40 years of campaigning.
I appreciate that Labour are in a very deep hole- locally their vote is barely detectable even in places which have been strong for them in the past-yet the antipathy to Johnson, Rees Mogg et al is extremely strong. Meanwhile Jo Swinson is getting really positive name recognition.
It genuinely feels like something big is happening out there and I think Johnson trusting to Cummings extremely risky "35% core vote" strategy could well see utter failure.
They will not be liking some of their own medicine. That will put the wind up them.
Saudi Arabia was described by some Lebanese people I was working with as a tinder box about ten years ago. Under their well ordered exterior is an extremely nasty state with a non too content population
On one hand, the Lib Dem move to pure revoke is predictable. We've spent years discussing how the politics of Brexit is increasingly polarising and as the Conservatives have drifted ever more to a No Deal position it's not entirely surprising that the Lib Dems have drifted ever more the opposite way.
Plus, the three main UK parties are (some might say *finally*) having ever more distinct positions on Brexit. There's becoming clear water between them all now.
On the other hand, there's no more rationale to say the country as a whole would think it's fair to revoke on a hypothetical circa 30-35% Lib Dem GE majority vote share than there would be for the country thinking it's fair to leave with no deal on a circa 30-35% Conservative GE majority vote share.
Personally, I voted Remain, but I don't think I could support the straight Lib Dem revoke position (unless it was potentially literally 20 minutes before the deadline to avoid No Deal).
I think there's a reasonable argument that can be made for a second referendum based on a deal (probably going to have to be May's unless another one can be concocted quickly) against Remain if only because it seems to be the only real way to get any sort of progress one way or another, but much as I hope we do ultimately revoke I don't think I could support that position without another referendum first.
A second chance to vote for a rejected choice before the winning choice has been enacted would not be democratic no matter how you try to couch it.
It's very like having the 2017 election just 2 years after the 2015 election, since the 2015 majority proved insufficient to provide a basis for what they wanted to do. The public were asked to confirm that they wanted a strong Tory government. They declined, but that doesn't mean that it was undemocraitc to ask them.
Similiarly, a second referendum to see if people still favour Leave in the light of the available options, which weren't obvious at the time of the referendum, isn't undemocratic. Simply revoking without asking the question is clearly undemocratic, though.
I think it's foolish. They could have the whole Remain board to themselves, and that's quite a large swathe of the electoral landscape, but this policy, which makes little theoretical difference (very unlikely they'll be a majority government), may well put off soft pro-EU types and gives Labour more electoral elbow room as the party of a referendum.
It's an unnecessary ceding of territory that only helps Labour and harms the Lib Dems. Super pro-EU types were always going to back them anyway.
Its not just the MPs that are leaving the Tory Party. Activists of decades are walking out. Moderate Conservatives hate what has happened under Johnson and they are not sitting on their hands- they are actively coming out to help the Liberal Democrats. On the doorsteps I am seeing numbers literally better than I have ever seen in nearly 40 years of campaigning.
I appreciate that Labour are in a very deep hole- locally their vote is barely detectable even in places which have been strong for them in the past-yet the antipathy to Johnson, Rees Mogg et al is extremely strong. Meanwhile Jo Swinson is getting really positive name recognition.
It genuinely feels like something big is happening out there and I think Johnson trusting to Cummings extremely risky "35% core vote" strategy could well see utter failure.
God knows it would be deserved.
Instinctively, I feel Opinium is nearer the mark than Comres on the Brexitness of the voting public. But leaving aside policy detail, it's the totality of Johnson's dishonesty that will get him I think. He's not sincere on anything at all. Cummings' baroque plots are the last things he needs. Added to which, Brexit is a house of cards.
Interested to read yesterday that LDs and Tories in informal talks to try and prevent an SNP Natwash of the Scottish seats. Presumably something along the lines of free run in Fife, and the 3 non shetland seats in return for free run in berwickshire, dumfriesshire and a couple of the NE seats?
They are a bunch of losers , unable to win anything without cheating, your typical unionists.
Now pacts, official or otherwise, is cheating? You're becoming your own parody.
That said I dont imagine there will be any such free runs. They fear a backlash too much to cooperate like that.
You may have very low standards, I will not join you. If their pretendy useless subregional parties cannot win on their own merit then they should give it up. Fixing it by vote swapping is the sign of rogues and just what you would expect from these losers. No policies no principles and no scruples, cheating lying no-marks.
Morning, Malc. While on the topic of 'regional' parties, have you seen this?
Morning Carnyx, I had not seen it , thanks for pointing it out. Things do seem to be moving in right direction , just need to get enough people away from the ingrained opinions that they are too poor and too stupid to run their own affairs and need those absolute clowns in Westminster to spend their money for them.
How would they do a frictionless border between England and an EU Scotland ? Asking for an Irish friend.
The same way they plan to do the Irish one perhaps, would have thought your Irish friend could have filled you in. Given we have no GFA and no troubles it would be a simple matter to arrange and if not there are only two major roads in and out of Scotland ( maybe 3 other minor ones) thanks to unionists spending all our money down south. Stopping a very minimum of vehicles would be a minor irritant if England was so petty and nasty it wanted to do so. Given they would be crapping themselves about losing EU trade if they did their usual heavy handed unionist stuff I doubt they would cut off their nose to spite their face.
If the solution to the Irish border problem is checks between GB and the island of Ireland - which was reportedly what Boris was considering - that obviously won't work as a solution to the England and EU Scotland border problem. Also presumes the EU will let Scotland remain part of the CTA, rather than have to join Schengen like all new member states do.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Interested to read yesterday that LDs and Tories in informal talks to try and prevent an SNP Natwash of the Scottish seats. Presumably something along the lines of free run in Fife, and the 3 non shetland seats in return for free run in berwickshire, dumfriesshire and a couple of the NE seats?
They are a bunch of losers , unable to win anything without cheating, your typical unionists.
Now pacts, official or otherwise, is cheating? You're becoming your own parody.
That said I dont imagine there will be any such free runs. They fear a backlash too much to cooperate like that.
You may have very low standards, I will not join you. If their pretendy useless subregional parties cannot win on their own merit then they should give it up. Fixing it by vote swapping is the sign of rogues and just what you would expect from these losers. No policies no principles and no scruples, cheating lying no-marks.
Morning, Malc. While on the topic of 'regional' parties, have you seen this?
How would they do a frictionless border between England and an EU Scotland ? Asking for an Irish friend.
The same way they plan to do the Irish one perhaps, would have thought your Irish friend could have filled you in. Given we have no GFA and no troubles it would be a simple matter to arrange and if not there are only two major roads in and out of Scotland ( maybe 3 other minor ones) thanks to unionists spending all our money down south. Stopping a very minimum of vehicles would be a minor irritant if England was so petty and nasty it wanted to do so. Given they would be crapping themselves about losing EU trade if they did their usual heavy handed unionist stuff I doubt they would cut off their nose to spite their face.
If the solution to the Irish border problem is checks between GB and the island of Ireland - which was reportedly what Boris was considering - that obviously won't work as a solution to the England and EU Scotland border problem. Also presumes the EU will let Scotland remain part of the CTA, rather than have to join Schengen like all new member states do.
Don't see Schengen being a big deal personally or a 5 minute delay at Gretna.
Mr. Punter, I fear that's wishful thinking on your part.
If we end up staying in, you can guarantee there'll be a campaign for us to leave. And every action we dislike will be salt in the wound.
How we stay (if that happens) will affect things a lot. But either way there'll be a legitimate grievance. If we stay due to a second referendum, the cry will be that such votes only count when they agree with the pro-EU Establishment. If we stay due to a Commons revocation, the accusations will be that the people are being ignored, and our politicians think they're the masters and not the servants of the electorate.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
I think the strongest reason for thinking there should be a 2nd referendum is the fact nobody in the leave campaign campaigned for No Deal in 2016, and anyone who claimed otherwise was apparently part of Project Fear. There is at the very least strong reason to think the result would have turned out differently had the leave campaign advocated No Deal; so if it's that the only version of Brexit the purists will accept - given unicorn deal isn't available and May's Deal, EFTA etc... are *worse than remaining* - we should have another referendum.
So let’s say parliament held 100 referendums. The first 99 result in a leave vote, and parliament refuses to leave, simply holding more referendums. The 100th referendum results in ‘remain’ and parliament accepts the result and there are no further referendums.
You don’t see anything undemocratic about that scenario?
Mr. Punter, I fear that's wishful thinking on your part.
If we end up staying in, you can guarantee there'll be a campaign for us to leave. And every action we dislike will be salt in the wound.
How we stay (if that happens) will affect things a lot. But either way there'll be a legitimate grievance. If we stay due to a second referendum, the cry will be that such votes only count when they agree with the pro-EU Establishment. If we stay due to a Commons revocation, the accusations will be that the people are being ignored, and our politicians think they're the masters and not the servants of the electorate.
I've never thought or suggested that Revoke was any kind of painless solution.
In fact I've long been of the Alastair Meekes School of Pessimism. All outcomes from here are bad; some are a little less bad than others.
I used to think a second ref was the least bad option, but I could be persuaded that a GE might be fractionally less bad. Would depend on the circumstances, I think.
But please don't think I'm blind to the problems a straight Revoke would create.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
He led Labour to their third-worst result since 1987.
That means he wasn't quite as big a loser as Gordon Brown who led Britain into the worst economic crisis in eighty years.
That was certainly not true in terms of vote share which was higher than 1992- 2005 - 2010 - and 2015. In England & Wales, Corbyn outperformed Kinnock's 1992 result - and denied the Tories a majority.
Interested to read yesterday that LDs and Tories in informal talks to try and prevent an SNP Natwash of the Scottish seats. Presumably something along the lines of free run in Fife, and the 3 non shetland seats in return for free run in berwickshire, dumfriesshire and a couple of the NE seats?
They are a bunch of losers , unable to win anything without cheating, your typical unionists.
Now pacts, official or otherwise, is cheating? You're becoming your own parody.
That said I dont imagine there will be any such free runs. They fear a backlash too much to cooperate like that.
You may have very low standards, I will not join you. If their pretendy useless subregional parties cannot win on their own merit then they should give it up. Fixing it by vote swapping is the sign of rogues and just what you would expect from these losers. No policies no principles and no scruples, cheating lying no-marks.
Morning, Malc. While on the topic of 'regional' parties, have you seen this?
How would they do a frictionless border between England and an EU Scotland ? Asking for an Irish friend.
The same way they plan to do the Irish one perhaps, would have thought your Irish friend could have filled you in. Given we have no GFA and no troubles it would be a simple matter to arrange and if not there are only two major roads in and out of Scotland ( maybe 3 other minor ones) thanks to unionists spending all our money down south. Stopping a very minimum of vehicles would be a minor irritant if England was so petty and nasty it wanted to do so. Given they would be crapping themselves about losing EU trade if they did their usual heavy handed unionist stuff I doubt they would cut off their nose to spite their face.
If the solution to the Irish border problem is checks between GB and the island of Ireland - which was reportedly what Boris was considering - that obviously won't work as a solution to the England and EU Scotland border problem. Also presumes the EU will let Scotland remain part of the CTA, rather than have to join Schengen like all new member states do.
Don't see Schengen being a big deal personally or a 5 minute delay at Gretna.
If the LDs did rebrand as a centrist alliance per my musing, who would be the David Owen with continuity Liberal Democrat? Farron?
Who cares?
The OMRLP as its traditional for continuity centrist parties with famous leaders to come behind them in by elections. Other than that, i expect nobody, it was just a Sunday morning musing.
I keep expecting the OMRLP to announce its dissolution. With Labour and the Conservatives in the state they're in, there's just too much unofficial competition.
True enough. They could run on an original and best ticket though!
The way things are right now there would be mileage in them standing as 'the sane alternative.'
That would backfire. Odds are still very good labour and the tories would get more votes, possibly way more, and do the LDs want to be in the position of acknowledging, therefore, that a majority of the country is not sane? I appreciate it was not a likely serious suggestion, but the sentiment that the big two are crazy wont prevent them getting millions more votes.
@kle4 - I think you misread my comment. I was not suggesting the Liberal Democrats stand as a sane alternative to the Corbynistas and the Tories. I was suggesting that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party should.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
The current state of Westminter is a wretched advert for the perpetual squabbling of coalitions under PR.....
Its not just the MPs that are leaving the Tory Party. Activists of decades are walking out. Moderate Conservatives hate what has happened under Johnson and they are not sitting on their hands- they are actively coming out to help the Liberal Democrats. On the doorsteps I am seeing numbers literally better than I have ever seen in nearly 40 years of campaigning.
I appreciate that Labour are in a very deep hole- locally their vote is barely detectable even in places which have been strong for them in the past-yet the antipathy to Johnson, Rees Mogg et al is extremely strong. Meanwhile Jo Swinson is getting really positive name recognition.
It genuinely feels like something big is happening out there and I think Johnson trusting to Cummings extremely risky "35% core vote" strategy could well see utter failure.
God knows it would be deserved.
Where are you based?
We had a Labour canvasser round a couple of weeks back and my wife told him that Corbyn was a huge problem for us and that we were LibDem now. He said he was hearing the same from a lot of people and agreed about Corbyn. But, he went on, if you want to prevent No Deal and you live in Warwick and Leamington the only way to do it is to vote Labour. That is hard to argue against. In the end, the issue will be whether voters are more opposed to Corbyn than to crashing out of the EU. I suspect that enough will be for the Tories to win outright - almost certainly with fewer votes than in 2017.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
I appreciate your position, but some compromise is needed. Remain is justified for two reasons. The information we have learned in the past three years and flaws in the 2016 vote. A referendum offering two specific outcomes, not vague concepts is the way forward.
There would have been no compromise from Remain had they won even if by a closer margin. Besides fro a huge number of Leave voters - probably the majority, EFTA is a compromise. What you seem to be suggssting is that the only acceptable compromise is reversing the result.
Not at all. Compromise is clearly needed. Reject the two extreme positions, hard Brexit and flat Revoke, and you are left with an EFTA style Brexit and a referendum.
I doubt voters will be prepared to listen to Composite motion B sub section 10 'Referendum Amendment D' 'EFTA Style Brexit and a Referendum with REMAIN as an Option'....Proposed by Brother McClusky of the UNITE Union....
Because no one -Leave or Remain-trusts Corbyn on Brexit so nobody will listen to his offer. The only thing keeping his head above water is fear of Johnson. He would find it more productive to find a name for his Brexit (The Greenland Variation?) and then try to ignore it and spend the campaign working on his strengths.
I have three problems with the current LibDem position.
1) No thought, care or accommodation with those that voted Brexit. 2) Divisive populist slogans and over simple solutions, ‘bollocks’ 3) The appearance that they are more interested in their party revival than actually solving Brexit.
Yes, it's poor and a bit tawdry, perhaps reflecting Jo Swinson's inexperience. But at least they not completely bonkers like the leaderships of Labour and the Tories.
Labours agonising over Brexit has IMO come up with the best policy, refine Mays deal to an EFTA like state and put it to the people in a referendum with remain as an option.
The problem is that they have no-one able to communicate it.
Remain should not be an option. That has already been voted on and rejected. Since the Remain argument has consistently been people didn't know whst they were voting for the only acceptable second referendum should be on the type of Brexit we have. EFTA vs No Deal seems reasonable.
I appreciate your position, but some compromise is needed. Remain is justified for two reasons. The information we have learned in the past three years and flaws in the 2016 vote. A referendum offering two specific outcomes, not vague concepts is the way forward.
There would have been no compromise from Remain had they won even if by a closer margin. Besides fro a huge number of Leave voters - probably the majority, EFTA is a compromise. What you seem to be suggssting is that the only acceptable compromise is reversing the result.
Not at all. Compromise is clearly needed. Reject the two extreme positions, hard Brexit and flat Revoke, and you are left with an EFTA style Brexit and a referendum.
I doubt voters will be prepared to listen to Composite motion B sub section 10 'Referendum Amendment D' 'EFTA Style Brexit and a Referendum with Leave and REMAIN as an Option'....Proposed by Brother McClusky of the UNITE Union....
Because no one -Leave or Remain-trusts Corbyn on Brexit so nobody will listen to his offer. The only thing keeping his head above water is fear of Johnson. He would find it more productive to find a name for his Brexit (The Greenland Variation?) and then try to ignore it and spend the campaign working on his strengths.
We need to find a compromise. This is the only game in town.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
30-35% might be well off the pace. You could envision the LibDems getting say 17% of the vote and 35 MPs who hold the balance of power. Their price for supporting a Labour Govt. is out and out revoke, now.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
He has fought just the one and did well. He did so starting from a polling position that was worse than it is now. He has thus earned the right to fight the next one.
He didn't do well. He lost!
He led Labour to their third-worst result since 1987.
That means he wasn't quite as big a loser as Gordon Brown who led Britain into the worst economic crisis in eighty years.
That was certainly not true in terms of vote share which was higher than 1992- 2005 - 2010 - and 2015. In England & Wales, Corbyn outperformed Kinnock's 1992 result - and denied the Tories a majority.
In case you were unaware of this, vote share is irrelevant in a UK general election. Mr Clement Attlee would remind you of this after October 1951.
The facts are he lost and lost badly. That he lost somewhat less badly than expected is important but not decisive.
Interested to read yesterday that LDs and Tories in informal talks to try and prevent an SNP Natwash of the Scottish seats. Presumably something along the lines of free run in Fife, and the 3 non shetland seats in return for free run in berwickshire, dumfriesshire and a couple of the NE seats?
They are a bunch of losers , unable to win anything without cheating, your typical unionists.
Now pacts, official or otherwise, is cheating? You're becoming your own parody.
That said I dont imagine there will be any such free runs. They fear a backlash too much to cooperate like that.
SNiP
Morning, Malc. While on the topic of 'regional' parties, have you seen this?
How would they do a frictionless border between England and an EU Scotland ? Asking for an Irish friend.
The same way they plan to do the Irish one perhaps, would have thought your Irish friend could have filled you in. Given we have no GFA and no troubles it would be a simple matter to arrange and if not there are only two major roads in and out of Scotland ( maybe 3 other minor ones) thanks to unionists spending all our money down south. Stopping a very minimum of vehicles would be a minor irritant if England was so petty and nasty it wanted to do so. Given they would be crapping themselves about losing EU trade if they did their usual heavy handed unionist stuff I doubt they would cut off their nose to spite their face.
If the solution to the Irish border problem is checks between GB and the island of Ireland - which was reportedly what Boris was considering - that obviously won't work as a solution to the England and EU Scotland border problem. Also presumes the EU will let Scotland remain part of the CTA, rather than have to join Schengen like all new member states do.
Don't see Schengen being a big deal personally or a 5 minute delay at Gretna.
Bulgaria is not in Schengen.
Exactly , but in or out is a minor item re benefits of EU membership
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
But according to everything we were told by the government previously, if MPs passed a deal tomorrow, we would still need an extension to pass the necessary legislation.
The discussion seems to have become totally divorced from reality.
At this rate, Australia might knock the runs off by the end of the day.
Steve Smith is the nearest thing to a human run making machine I have ever seen. He makes Kumar Sangakkara look like Chris Martin.
England haven't got him out all series, they are not going to start now, and he is more than capable of winning the match even if a random tailender is at the other end.
And I know it's mean, but I can't help but be rather glad Warner has looked like a completely spent force this series.
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
But according to everything we were told by the government previously, if MPs passed a deal tomorrow, we would still need an extension to pass the necessary legislation.
The discussion seems to have become totally divorced from reality.
If the LDs did rebrand as a centrist alliance per my musing, who would be the David Owen with continuity Liberal Democrat? Farron?
Who cares?
The OMRLP as its traditional for continuity centrist parties with famous leaders to come behind them in by elections. Other than that, i expect nobody, it was just a Sunday morning musing.
I keep expecting the OMRLP to announce its dissolution. With Labour and the Conservatives in the state they're in, there's just too much unofficial competition.
True enough. They could run on an original and best ticket though!
The way things are right now there would be mileage in them standing as 'the sane alternative.'
That would backfire. Odds are still very good labour and the tories would get more votes, possibly way more, and do the LDs want to be in the position of acknowledging, therefore, that a majority of the country is not sane? I appreciate it was not a likely serious suggestion, but the sentiment that the big two are crazy wont prevent them getting millions more votes.
@kle4 - I think you misread my comment. I was not suggesting the Liberal Democrats stand as a sane alternative to the Corbynistas and the Tories. I was suggesting that the Official Monster Raving Loony Party should.
I think the strongest reason for thinking there should be a 2nd referendum is the fact nobody in the leave campaign campaigned for No Deal in 2016, and anyone who claimed otherwise was apparently part of Project Fear. There is at the very least strong reason to think the result would have turned out differently had the leave campaign advocated No Deal; so if it's that the only version of Brexit the purists will accept - given unicorn deal isn't available and May's Deal, EFTA etc... are *worse than remaining* - we should have another referendum.
This is the nub of it. The best outcome is we leave with a deal. Do not put it back to 'the people' - no need, they have already voted, just implement the decision in a sane manner.
However if this is not possible, and the outcome looks like being to leave in a crazy manner - no deal - which clearly has no democratic legitimacy, then the dead man's handle of cancel Brexit ought to be activated.
And the best way to do this is the realistic and practical - and incredibly easy to understand - Labour policy of a Ref2 pitching a very soft BINO vs Remain. That will be 40/60 minimum.
This is not great - nothing is from here - but it is better than a Tory No Deal or a Lib Dem straight Revoke.
But as I say, best Brexit outcome is that Johnson gets a deal through.
Unfortunately, that leads to Tory landslide and lots more of him - so no thank you.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
30-35% might be well off the pace. You could envision the LibDems getting say 17% of the vote and 35 MPs who hold the balance of power. Their price for supporting a Labour Govt. is out and out revoke, now.
#FuckThe17.4m
Lib Dems are going to end up on their arses, delusions that they will be in power or even get to hold balance of power with their crackpot ideas is laughable.
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
But according to everything we were told by the government previously, if MPs passed a deal tomorrow, we would still need an extension to pass the necessary legislation.
The discussion seems to have become totally divorced from reality.
It's certainly confusing.
Surely if they're actually worried about this issue then in the unlikely event there's a WA that can make it through parliament, they'd just amend it to close the loophole
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
30-35% might be well off the pace. You could envision the LibDems getting say 17% of the vote and 35 MPs who hold the balance of power. Their price for supporting a Labour Govt. is out and out revoke, now.
#FuckThe17.4m
Lib Dems are going to end up on their arses, delusions that they will be in power or even get to hold balance of power with their crackpot ideas is laughable.
We all thought that about the SNP fifteen years ago.
The Lib Dem policy on revoke is high risk and could crash and burn .
It could however build up a head of steam . The simple slogan , Stop The Chaos Vote To Revoke might appeal to quite a few voters .
At this stage we just don’t know what will happen.
I take NP's point about it being a bit negative, and not appropriate for a Party with serious intentions of becoming the Government. It is however very clear, and will appeal to the 'get it over with' crowd.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we revoke, the consequences will poison politics in this country for an age. It is no panacea.
As a remainer, my biggest concern about revoke - as I think someone said earlier - is that it would potentially give mandate to a party to enact No Deal with only 30-35% vote, and a thin majority. Such is FPTP. Though I expect part of the Lib Dems logic is that they'd also enact PR, which would possibly block pro-Brexit parties from ever getting a majority in the Commons.
30-35% might be well off the pace. You could envision the LibDems getting say 17% of the vote and 35 MPs who hold the balance of power. Their price for supporting a Labour Govt. is out and out revoke, now.
#FuckThe17.4m
Lib Dems are going to end up on their arses, delusions that they will be in power or even get to hold balance of power with their crackpot ideas is laughable.
Indeed. The way they are talking you'd think they were polling in a Blair stylee. They are third in every poll.
Several Lib Dem speakers against the Revoke motion .
I personally don’t like straight to revoke .
I think the question for them is whether it is the kind of move which will let them eclipse Labour in vote share (or polling at least), which would be psycologically huge, or whether the fact they have been so consistently for Remain anyway means that there is no additional benefit progressing their position to revoke when they won't ever be in a position to implement it.
30-35% might be well off the pace. You could envision the LibDems getting say 17% of the vote and 35 MPs who hold the balance of power. Their price for supporting a Labour Govt. is out and out revoke, now.
Nah, they accept the referendum of whatever Labour negotiates, since Your Thing -> Referendum Where The Voters Can Choose Your Thing is the low-hanging fruit of political compromises. But the advantage of their new position is that they can demand something in return for accepting Labour's position, instead of their position being the same as Labour's position.
At this rate, Australia might knock the runs off by the end of the day.
Steve Smith is the nearest thing to a human run making machine I have ever seen. He makes Kumar Sangakkara look like Chris Martin.
England haven't got him out all series, they are not going to start now, and he is more than capable of winning the match even if a random tailender is at the other end.
And I know it's mean, but I can't help but be rather glad Warner has looked like a completely spent force this series.
What is most remarkable is, batting 4, he's never come in at 150 or 200 for 2, with an old ball and a knackered attack. It's usually been sub 50 with the bowlers on top.
Comments
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1173159928699281408
2.Popuist slogans with our population are the only ones that work. Look at the effect of Turkey in the Leave vote
3.Johnson goes one step further. He has no interest in Brexit whatsoever other than what it does to his career. Witness David Cameron
I've been persuaded by the 'people didnt know' argument myself either. It may be true for a lot of people but remainers did tell everyone these things at the time.
Oddly though my deeper friendships are with those I wouldn't necessarily call political bedfellows, including one good female friend whose application to join the UK Communist Party was rejected because she owns a second property, her arguments that it was a farm in Normandy so should be exempt fell on deaf (red) ears.
I picked up the jibe about Farage and all I can say is that it is an unfortunate result of the refusal of the establishment over the years to listen to the frustrations of the (mostly) working class that has fuelled the rise of Farage.
The same establishment seem intent on putting boosters under his popularity with the path they are on.
I hope a sensible deal is done which will remove Farage from the political picture.
As I said further down, we only begin to return to normality in the UK once the Corbyn factor has been removed from equation.
In a nutshell MPs could pass the deal and then Johnson could refuse to put the WAIB forward meaning the UK leaves with no deal .
This would be an extreme act of bad faith by Bozo and could turn a lot of Tory MPs against him.
Whilst he’s plumbed the depths so far this move would seem bizarre. It would completely explode the party . And some Leavers want a deal .
I’m not sure how fair that might be, as I fell asleep during the Barclay interview, but it was suggested that the new policy is to nominally leave while essentially continuing with all current European arrangements for a two years’ interim negotiation period.
This ones kind of critical of both sides casino, let me know if thats thinking for myself enough.
There might be a loophole but Bozo walks an election if he delivers a deal , if he goes full on no deal and it goes badly voters will punish him and he’ll be out .
That's why it's been my suggestion all along that the Irish border should be sorted during transition not now.
Of course, I would love to be wrong about this. The UK is not going to begin to get back on track until there is a Labour party capable of winning general elections.
It's not an election winning superpower.
https://twitter.com/KenSweeney/status/1173123388287705088?s=20
Not at all. Compromise is clearly needed. Reject the two extreme positions, hard Brexit and flat Revoke, and you are left with an EFTA style Brexit and a referendum.
We have spent 3 years of blood an treasure enacting it.
We voted for a unicorn. It's not undemocratic to ask people if they want to call off the hunt.
There are no caveats to that statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_Day
I can see it has the virtue of clarity and perhaps electoral appeal, but if the Lib Dems can cancel Brexit on say 35% of the vote, then so can the Tories justify a No Deal.
Neither are acceptable in my opinion.
Hmmmph.
I appreciate that Labour are in a very deep hole- locally their vote is barely detectable even in places which have been strong for them in the past-yet the antipathy to Johnson, Rees Mogg et al is extremely strong. Meanwhile Jo Swinson is getting really positive name recognition.
It genuinely feels like something big is happening out there and I think Johnson trusting to Cummings extremely risky "35% core vote" strategy could well see utter failure.
God knows it would be deserved.
It’s a shit idea, but it’s the least shit of the options open to us.
Any referendum should be on a Deal versus Remain.
Any referendum explicitly recognises that the first was fatally flawed by the lack of an clear Leave scenario.
Plus, the three main UK parties are (some might say *finally*) having ever more distinct positions on Brexit. There's becoming clear water between them all now.
On the other hand, there's no more rationale to say the country as a whole would think it's fair to revoke on a hypothetical circa 30-35% Lib Dem GE majority vote share than there would be for the country thinking it's fair to leave with no deal on a circa 30-35% Conservative GE majority vote share.
Personally, I voted Remain, but I don't think I could support the straight Lib Dem revoke position (unless it was potentially literally 20 minutes before the deadline to avoid No Deal).
I think there's a reasonable argument that can be made for a second referendum based on a deal (probably going to have to be May's unless another one can be concocted quickly) against Remain if only because it seems to be the only real way to get any sort of progress one way or another, but much as I hope we do ultimately revoke I don't think I could support that position without another referendum first.
Similiarly, a second referendum to see if people still favour Leave in the light of the available options, which weren't obvious at the time of the referendum, isn't undemocratic. Simply revoking without asking the question is clearly undemocratic, though.
I think it's foolish. They could have the whole Remain board to themselves, and that's quite a large swathe of the electoral landscape, but this policy, which makes little theoretical difference (very unlikely they'll be a majority government), may well put off soft pro-EU types and gives Labour more electoral elbow room as the party of a referendum.
It's an unnecessary ceding of territory that only helps Labour and harms the Lib Dems. Super pro-EU types were always going to back them anyway.
In fact Revoke is the only policy that truly gets it over with, immediately. As we on here well know, if we leave that's just the start of it. It will drag on interminably.
That is likely to become increasingly obvious through a GE campaign.
Shrewd punt from the Yellow Peril?
If we end up staying in, you can guarantee there'll be a campaign for us to leave. And every action we dislike will be salt in the wound.
How we stay (if that happens) will affect things a lot. But either way there'll be a legitimate grievance. If we stay due to a second referendum, the cry will be that such votes only count when they agree with the pro-EU Establishment. If we stay due to a Commons revocation, the accusations will be that the people are being ignored, and our politicians think they're the masters and not the servants of the electorate.
I’m happy that he went out on a high and saw a good recovery for the party .
You don’t see anything undemocratic about that scenario?
Revoke without a referendum unless we don't win an election and then the policy becomes campaign for a referendum in order to vote Remain.
As others have said, forming a government on 35% of the vote is not a mandate to Revoke.
The LibDem policy might look clever but I find it poorly thought through and undemocratic.
In fact I've long been of the Alastair Meekes School of Pessimism. All outcomes from here are bad; some are a little less bad than others.
I used to think a second ref was the least bad option, but I could be persuaded that a GE might be fractionally less bad. Would depend on the circumstances, I think.
But please don't think I'm blind to the problems a straight Revoke would create.
We had a Labour canvasser round a couple of weeks back and my wife told him that Corbyn was a huge problem for us and that we were LibDem now. He said he was hearing the same from a lot of people and agreed about Corbyn. But, he went on, if you want to prevent No Deal and you live in Warwick and Leamington the only way to do it is to vote Labour. That is hard to argue against. In the end, the issue will be whether voters are more opposed to Corbyn than to crashing out of the EU. I suspect that enough will be for the Tories to win outright - almost certainly with fewer votes than in 2017.
Because no one -Leave or Remain-trusts Corbyn on Brexit so nobody will listen to his offer. The only thing keeping his head above water is fear of Johnson. He would find it more productive to find a name for his Brexit (The Greenland Variation?) and then try to ignore it and spend the campaign working on his strengths.
#FuckThe17.4m
The facts are he lost and lost badly. That he lost somewhat less badly than expected is important but not decisive.
The discussion seems to have become totally divorced from reality.
England haven't got him out all series, they are not going to start now, and he is more than capable of winning the match even if a random tailender is at the other end.
And I know it's mean, but I can't help but be rather glad Warner has looked like a completely spent force this series.
However if this is not possible, and the outcome looks like being to leave in a crazy manner - no deal - which clearly has no democratic legitimacy, then the dead man's handle of cancel Brexit ought to be activated.
And the best way to do this is the realistic and practical - and incredibly easy to understand - Labour policy of a Ref2 pitching a very soft BINO vs Remain. That will be 40/60 minimum.
This is not great - nothing is from here - but it is better than a Tory No Deal or a Lib Dem straight Revoke.
But as I say, best Brexit outcome is that Johnson gets a deal through.
Unfortunately, that leads to Tory landslide and lots more of him - so no thank you.
Remind me how that worked out?
I personally don’t like straight to revoke .
He's overdue for a big Hundred.