I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
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.
Remind me how that worked out?
Salmond came back. Really though if that useless twunk Swinson and the Lib Dems are the solution I would rather vote for Boris.
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
So after demanding that MPs force an extension if they don't get a deal through, they are now telling MPs not to vote for a deal?
You couldn't make it up.
Well it was never about getting a deal, the extension was the end in itself, but in fairness Cummings and Boris seem pretty clear they will respond in kind to clever schemes, so who knows if this 'pass it, then we no deal' plan is indeed being floated.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
I wonder if we will look back at the 2015 election as the biggest collective piece of crap decision making in our history? A Marxist with a bacon butty problem vs A statesman of the highest order. Indeed.
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
That sounds like a possible way forward in Brexit. Let's have a vote on whether we should have a second referendum!
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
That sounds like a possible way forward in Brexit. Let's have a vote on whether we should have a second referendum!
I propose resurrecting my scheme wherein we leave, and tell remainers we haven't really, or we remain, and tell leavers we are out, and we all agree to pretend that is the case.
Several Lib Dem speakers against the Revoke motion .
I personally don’t like straight to revoke .
To me, revoke is a mechanism not a policy. My policy in this case is indefinite postponement. We haven't found a broadly agreed way of leaving the European Union that deals with all the major issues. We hold off leaving until we do, which might take five years or we might never do it. But given the referendum result we're still committed to leave in principle, should the issues be sorted out and a consensus reached.
I can see those supporting Leave would mistrust this policy, probably enough to damn it, but it is the way people deal with this kind of situation in real life. As such, this is the sensible policy.
If you can set the question, select the voters, select the candidates, or choose to run the vote again, then even if everything about the voting itself is tickety-boo it can still be undemocratic.
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
Indyref2 success would mean instant loss of the party leader, and the loss of plenty of generally social centrist MPs in the form of the SNP, even if one were to assume the LDs don't gain more Scottish seats, so there is some selfish logic to that.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
One thing not considered in among all the talk of England's batting is that Smith apart Australia have been pathetic as well. David Warner has had nine failures including three ducks in ten innings. Where Smith has come back rejuvenated he has come back looking broken. I would say there's a non-trivial chance he's played his last Test innings.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
I wonder if we will look back at the 2015 election as the biggest collective piece of crap decision making in our history? A Marxist with a bacon butty problem vs A statesman of the highest order. Indeed.
And only 36.9% voted for him. FPTP brings stability apparently
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
And Cummings is even thicker.
No, he's not. He won the referendum, unlike Cameron.
Intriguingly, even the Sunday Times itself - which has serialised the Cameron memoir - is absolutely withering about his legacy.
After a long leader detailing his grievous errors, it concludes:
"Many millions of people, it should be said, are grateful that Mr Cameron accidentally gave this country the Brexit they had long craved. They will not thank him, however, for the chaos left in his wake. Life can be cruel for good chaps."
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.
If they do that we're set for another triumph of un-democracy like 1983
41% Tory High 20s% SDP Alliance (I think) 20s% Lab
Result: Tory majority of 140 although That Bloody Woman got fewer votes than in 1979.
Admittedly some seats in Surrey might now go from Tory to LibDem if some of the Labour and Tory vote switches to a pro-EU centre party. Surrey did after all have a pro-EU majority in many districts, as did Redwood's seat of Wokingham in Berks.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
And Cummings is even thicker.
No, he's not. He won the referendum, unlike Cameron.
Intriguingly, even the Sunday Times itself - which has serialised the Cameron memoir - is absolutely withering about his legacy.
After a long leader detailing his grievous errors, it concludes:
"Many millions of people, it should be said, are grateful that Mr Cameron accidentally gave this country the Brexit they had long craved. They will not thank him, however, for the chaos left in his wake. Life can be cruel for good chaps."
Quietly devastating.
Cameron won two referendums. I'm standing by my claim.
If there isn’t some wider realignment to come, and the structure and traditions of the LibDems remain as they are, then say Layla Moran remains a more likely next leader than some as yet unknown defector.
Whilst a major Labour breakaway has looked the most likely route to realignment for most of my lifetime, you can now at least see a possibility that the moderate wing of the Tory party comes over en masse, which would certainly change the dynamic.
If there isn’t some wider realignment to come, and the structure and traditions of the LibDems remain as they are, then say Layla Moran remains a more likely next leader than some as yet unknown defector.
Whilst a major Labour breakaway has looked the most likely route to realignment for most of my lifetime, you can now at least see a possibility that the moderate wing of the Tory party comes over en masse, which would certainly change the dynamic.
What's rather different from previous supposed opportunities for realignment which usually never materialise is that this time the Tories have kicked out their own reasonably sensible members. They haven't had to make a horribly difficult choice, they had it made for them.
Several Lib Dem speakers against the Revoke motion .
I personally don’t like straight to revoke .
To me, revoke is a mechanism not a policy. My policy in this case is indefinite postponement. We haven't found a broadly agreed way of leaving the European Union that deals with all the major issues. We hold off leaving until we do, which might take five years or we might never do it. But given the referendum result we're still committed to leave in principle, should the issues be sorted out and a consensus reached.
I can see those supporting Leave would mistrust this policy, probably enough to damn it, but it is the way people deal with this kind of situation in real life. As such, this is the sensible policy.
It's pretty damn close to the Ken Clarke solution. You declare a five year moratorium and ask Leavers to create a structure, an organisation a plan and a timetable for Leaving. Then you put that to the vote.
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
Indyref2 success would mean instant loss of the party leader, and the loss of plenty of generally social centrist MPs in the form of the SNP, even if one were to assume the LDs don't gain more Scottish seats, so there is some selfish logic to that.
True but to try and pretend they are democratic is a bit thick. Bound to be big changes when Indyref2 is won , you would have thought all these subregional parties would have seen the opportunities in an independent Scotland for real Scottish parties.
If there isn’t some wider realignment to come, and the structure and traditions of the LibDems remain as they are, then say Layla Moran remains a more likely next leader than some as yet unknown defector.
Whilst a major Labour breakaway has looked the most likely route to realignment for most of my lifetime, you can now at least see a possibility that the moderate wing of the Tory party comes over en masse, which would certainly change the dynamic.
What's rather different from previous supposed opportunities for realignment which usually never materialise is that this time the Tories have kicked out their own reasonably sensible members. They haven't had to make a horribly difficult choice, they had it made for them.
Tbf once you get past the Gang of Four, that’s pretty much how it was for most of the SDP MPs back in 1981
The question is whether members and voters follow the politicians. On PB this is clearly happening, but I suspect Pb isn’t representative.
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.
I really had'nt thought of that before - and the result of the October 1951 election is news to me. No party won the 2017 election - Theresa May remained in office courtesy of the DUP.
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.
They are numpties, they are also stating that even if everybody in Scotland votes for Indyref2 they will not allow it. Mentally deranged Illiberal Undemocratic halfwits.
Indyref2 success would mean instant loss of the party leader, and the loss of plenty of generally social centrist MPs in the form of the SNP, even if one were to assume the LDs don't gain more Scottish seats, so there is some selfish logic to that.
True but to try and pretend they are democratic is a bit thick. Bound to be big changes when Indyref2 is won , you would have thought all these subregional parties would have seen the opportunities in an independent Scotland for real Scottish parties.
I have to agree that it is a more than strange policy. Fair enough to be against independence, but consent must be part of that.
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.
If they had a measured credible leadership team they could have had a very good next GE, maybe up to 40+ seats. Choosing someone so shrill and going so full of themselves they’ve blown the opportunity and missed this fair wind.
I’ll give your an example why this is an important and dangerous time for the Lib Dem’s. Neither Chuck or Sam are in the Lib Dem’s because they want to be there, as their first choice, it’s necessity. In politics necessity can flip around. The SDP deserting left wing Labour is the example. 14 years later the election of a Labour Government to the right of many of those SDP refugees. Ditto TMay stood in front of party’s conference calling them the nasty party, a handful of years later under Cam and Ossie Tories could hardly be more moderate or progressive.
One thing not considered in among all the talk of England's batting is that Smith apart Australia have been pathetic as well. David Warner has had nine failures including three ducks in ten innings. Where Smith has come back rejuvenated he has come back looking broken. I would say there's a non-trivial chance he's played his last Test innings.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
Both sides have papered over the cracks with some individual brilliance.
Australia are the more likely to improve because their domestic structure remains intact and it continues to produce strong candidates for the red ball game. Our structure is a mess and the County Championship no longer serves the purpose of producing Test class players. In fact it's hard to say what purpose it serves now except as a sop to critics of the short form game.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
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.
I really had'nt thought of that before - and the result of the October 1951 election is news to me. No party won the 2017 election - Theresa May remained in office courtesy of the DUP.
The sarcasm just drips from your post, Justin!
Look, however well Corbyn did in terms of voteshare - and although he fell literally fractionally short of the magic 40% he still did better in terms of voteshare than any Labour leader of the last fifty years other than Blair - the fact is, he did badly in terms of seats. Not as badly as was hoped/feared, but still badly. Where Brown and Kinnock had an efficient voteshare, Corbyn piled up too many big majorities in safe seats like his own, and fell short in too many marginals like Stoke on Trent South.
Seven years into opposition, against a government implementing austerity measures and standing on a manifesto William Hague would have baulked at while running a campaign the Marx Brothers would have radically improved on, the fact is Labour should have had a decent chance of winning. But at no point was that a realistic possibility and their result was comparable to one they had after nearly 15 years in government wherein they oversaw a massive financial collapse and a series of bank runs.
Now, you are at liberty to consider that 'doing well.' I consider it 'losing and losing badly.' And the key point is that it was very much his fault that Labour were unable to break through because he is such a divisive figure.
The Sunday Times also confirms that Cameron expressly forbade the civil service from preparing for a Leave vote. Even though the boffins wanted to, for obvious reasons.
That alone is an unforced error of Biblical proportions, for which Cameron - nice chap as he is - can never be forgiven.
One thing not considered in among all the talk of England's batting is that Smith apart Australia have been pathetic as well. David Warner has had nine failures including three ducks in ten innings. Where Smith has come back rejuvenated he has come back looking broken. I would say there's a non-trivial chance he's played his last Test innings.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
My answer would be that in Archer, Leach, Curran and Stokes England have an attack with potential, but they are no nearer replacing James Anderson which will be required to fully realise that potential. Due respect to Woakes, who is a brilliant white ball bowler and a fine all round cricketer but he doesn't look quite Test standard. They need one seamer who can reliably bowl dry and they don't have one.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
One thing not considered in among all the talk of England's batting is that Smith apart Australia have been pathetic as well. David Warner has had nine failures including three ducks in ten innings. Where Smith has come back rejuvenated he has come back looking broken. I would say there's a non-trivial chance he's played his last Test innings.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
Plus we were without Anderson.
Who do you see in county cricket coming into Englands top six and backing up the useful test bowlers we have? Outside of the mercurial Banton I can’t think of anyone. Gubbins? Lace? Crawley?
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
Boris and Corbyn both have one thing in common. They exploited May’s difficulty over the backstop for their own advantage.
This is tomorrow’s history books:
UK needs to compromise with EU over the backstop for a deal. Good democrats and UK patriots know this. The alternative is digging ourselves deeper into the mire and goodness knows how many £B’s wasted. Simply wasted. Someone has to pay, households, business, schools, hospitals, pensions, for the length of time mitigating no deal EU exit. Yet Corbyn and Boris exploited the difficulty of that necessary compromise with their own desire for keys to number ten. Those two men have burnt that money. They have that in common. Equally guilty.
One thing not considered in among all the talk of England's batting is that Smith apart Australia have been pathetic as well. David Warner has had nine failures including three ducks in ten innings. Where Smith has come back rejuvenated he has come back looking broken. I would say there's a non-trivial chance he's played his last Test innings.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
Plus we were without Anderson.
Who do you see in county cricket coming into Englands top six and backing up the useful test bowlers we have? Outside of the mercurial Banton I can’t think of anyone. Gubbins? Lace? Crawley?
I think Sibley should be opening on the winter tours. If Denly stays the obvious place for him to bat is three with Root moving to four and Stokes to five. Foakes perhaps as keeper. Pope to replace Buttler? Otherwise Westley is back in form. James Bracey did OK against Australia A and might be worth a spot as backup keeper.
Edit - Gubbins is barely first class standard right now. Lace is injured. Crawley will I think play for England in the end.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
UKIP made hay during the fall out of the pasty budget.
I don’t see a middle ground for the Lib Dem revoke policy .
It’s either going to crash and burn and hurt them or be a winner .
It’s not a compromise position , the danger is it’s seen as an extreme position just as the BP no deal is.
Although polls show a healthy amount of revokers these hypothetical polls don’t include that more Remainers might during a lengthy general election campaign come to the conclusion that staying in the EU needs a proper mandate .
Perhaps I’m not as Remain as I thought ! Which is bizarre , I’m staunchly pro EU and detest Brexit however I’m deeply uncomfortable with the Lib Dem proposal .
If I’m having these deep misgivings I can’t imagine my thoughts won’t be shared by many other Remainers .
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
My answer would be that in Archer, Leach, Curran and Stokes England have an attack with potential, but they are no nearer replacing James Anderson which will be required to fully realise that potential. Due respect to Woakes, who is a brilliant white ball bowler and a fine all round cricketer but he doesn't look quite Test standard. They need one seamer who can reliably bowl dry and they don't have one.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
Has Woakes not been carrying a niggling injury ? (Though I agree he’s not quite top rank..)
Warner now has the undisputed all time record for least number of runs by an opener in a test series who played ten innings.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
UKIP made hay during the fall out of the pasty budget.
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
My answer would be that in Archer, Leach, Curran and Stokes England have an attack with potential, but they are no nearer replacing James Anderson which will be required to fully realise that potential. Due respect to Woakes, who is a brilliant white ball bowler and a fine all round cricketer but he doesn't look quite Test standard. They need one seamer who can reliably bowl dry and they don't have one.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
Has Woakes not been carrying a niggling injury ? (Though I agree he’s not quite top rank..)
Warner now has the undisputed all time record for least number of runs by an opener in a test series who played ten innings.
He has scored fewer runs than Smith has scored boundaries.
Just as well Aussie spots are not decided on World Cup rules...
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Indeed, to quote myself, I see they've already started on that tortured, idiotic logic.
So Australia will presumably bat through to tea without loss while scoring 100 runs to get nearly halfway to the target. Good afternoon for batting and a flat pitch.
Cameron by no means won two referendums; he wasn't a player in either of them. The head groundsman at the Oval presumably supports England, but that doesn't make him the winner in the event of an England win.
Labour will one day wonder how many elections Corbyn cost them.
.
.
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.
I really had'nt thought of that before - and the result of the October 1951 election is news to me. No party won the 2017 election - Theresa May remained in office courtesy of the DUP.
The sarcasm just drips from your post, Justin!
Look, however well Corbyn did in terms of voteshare - and although he fell literally fractionally short of the magic 40% he still did better in terms of voteshare than any Labour leader of the last fifty years other than Blair - the fact is, he did badly in terms of seats. Not as badly as was hoped/feared, but still badly. Where Brown and Kinnock had an efficient voteshare, Corbyn piled up too many big majorities in safe seats like his own, and fell short in too many marginals like Stoke on Trent South.
Seven years into opposition, against a government implementing austerity measures and standing on a manifesto William Hague would have baulked at while running a campaign the Marx Brothers would have radically improved on, the fact is Labour should have had a decent chance of winning. But at no point was that a realistic possibility and their result was comparable to one they had after nearly 15 years in government wherein they oversaw a massive financial collapse and a series of bank runs.
Now, you are at liberty to consider that 'doing well.' I consider it 'losing and losing badly.' And the key point is that it was very much his fault that Labour were unable to break through because he is such a divisive figure.
Compared with where his party stood at the end of February 2017 in the aftermath of losing the Copeland by election , Corbyn did well to poll 41% on a GB basis. It was 11.3% higher than that achieved by Brown in 2010 - and 9.8% higher than Ed Milliband's 2015 result. He also bettered Kinnock's 1992 result in England & Wales - and -unlike Kinnock - was able to prevent the Tories gaining a majority. Theresa May also lost - but was able to find a willing moderate partner in the form of the DUP. Of course, the parliamentary arithmetic has now changed such that even their support will no longer suffice.
Perhaps I’m not as Remain as I thought ! Which is bizarre , I’m staunchly pro EU and detest Brexit however I’m deeply uncomfortable with the Lib Dem proposal .
If I’m having these deep misgivings I can’t imagine my thoughts won’t be shared by many other Remainers .
I feel the same way, and I'm an ultra super duper remainer. If we had PR, and the Lib Dems could only win with 50% of the vote, then fair enough (although I'd still have a problem with the referendum not being enacted, same as if there was another referendum).
But if they got 35% and win, then despite my hatred of Brexit, I think revoking would not be a good thing, for all the reasons already said.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
I think the argument is if the SNP win a majority at Holyrood in 2021 then they can have another referendum (though of course a few SNP diehards say they can declare independence even without a referendum if they win a majority of Scottish Westminster or Holyrood seats with a manifesto commitment to Leave the UK)
If there isn’t some wider realignment to come, and the structure and traditions of the LibDems remain as they are, then say Layla Moran remains a more likely next leader than some as yet unknown defector.
Whilst a major Labour breakaway has looked the most likely route to realignment for most of my lifetime, you can now at least see a possibility that the moderate wing of the Tory party comes over en masse, which would certainly change the dynamic.
What's rather different from previous supposed opportunities for realignment which usually never materialise is that this time the Tories have kicked out their own reasonably sensible members. They haven't had to make a horribly difficult choice, they had it made for them.
The other noteworthy thing is how quickly things have happened. Three weeks ago, the prorogation scam wasn't public knowledge. Two weeks ago, the threat to expel unsupportive MPs had just been made. The government defeats, the failure to set up a mid-October "Brexit is in peril. Defend it with all your might" election, the strangeness of exhausted Boris, they've happened in a fortnight.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
Cameron and the Cameroons are all on message with the “we had no choice” message. To which I say Bollocks.
1. So remain wins by a small or even large margin? That’s the end of it then for a generation or more? Nope! Don’t insult our intelligence with that claim.
2. And there’s the gamble leave wins, and all hell breaks loose. Ossie was against the gamble at the time? Who else?
3. What did Ruth say in a parting shot, this mess came about because asking the nation that question was cop out, an abdication of true leadership? You spend years pandering to euro scepticism and then try to change all that in a few months? Where’s the credibility of your message when you spend years pandering to scepticism then try to sound euro friendly euro benefits all of a sudden, no credibility at all hence only thing you have is the frighteners with a project fear.
4. Referendums can take many forms. That particularly question, with leave narrowly winning but not knowing how popular different leave options are? Would those voting for a good deal leave really want no deal leave?
Cameron and friends you are on media this weekend spinning bollocks.
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
My answer would be that in Archer, Leach, Curran and Stokes England have an attack with potential, but they are no nearer replacing James Anderson which will be required to fully realise that potential. Due respect to Woakes, who is a brilliant white ball bowler and a fine all round cricketer but he doesn't look quite Test standard. They need one seamer who can reliably bowl dry and they don't have one.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
Has Woakes not been carrying a niggling injury ? (Though I agree he’s not quite top rank..)
Warner now has the undisputed all time record for least number of runs by an opener in a test series who played ten innings.
I suspect the selectors are having a look at Cook, of Essex. Sam, not Suralistair. Coming on nicely If they're not then they're very, very shortsighted,.
It is quite difficult to assess just how good is the bowling on either side, given the paucity of the batting resources.
My answer would be that in Archer, Leach, Curran and Stokes England have an attack with potential, but they are no nearer replacing James Anderson which will be required to fully realise that potential. Due respect to Woakes, who is a brilliant white ball bowler and a fine all round cricketer but he doesn't look quite Test standard. They need one seamer who can reliably bowl dry and they don't have one.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
Has Woakes not been carrying a niggling injury ? (Though I agree he’s not quite top rank..)
Warner now has the undisputed all time record for least number of runs by an opener in a test series who played ten innings.
I suspect the selectors are having a look at Cook, of Essex. Sam, not Suralistair. Coming on nicely If they're not then they're very, very shortsighted,.
But we know they are, don't we? Exhibit A: Jason Roy.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Indeed, to quote myself, I see they've already started on that tortured, idiotic logic.
I do like how the party of the middle ground, PR and (implicitly) intra party cooperation, explicitly rules out any kind of coalition. I know there are other ways for parties to cooperate, and we know why they are so scared of even possibly entering into such a formal arrangement ever again, but it gives me the impression that they are totally in favour of cooperation, except when they are not.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
Imagine not realising Cameron was a moron
I know. My bad. In my defence I have long suspected - and said - he was complacent, lazy and not-as-smart-as-he-thought.
But yes, I did not realise he was a thicko. A superbly educated thicko. Astonishing
It's great that Broad is continuing his trend of having a bad enough run that people start to talk about dropping him, and then being one of the best players of a series to quiet the rumblings.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Indeed, to quote myself, I see they've already started on that tortured, idiotic logic.
It's great that Broad is continuing his trend of having a bad enough run that people start to talk about dropping him, and then being one of the best players of a series to quiet the rumblings.
My ticket for tomorrow is looking increasingly redundant. First time I was hoping that Smith stayed in for a few hours.
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.
Not at all. Democracy is not just about asking the question. Anyone can do that with no intention of enacting the result. For it to be democratic you have to actually act on the result rather than just claiming it is too difficult, waiting 3 years and then trying to ask again because the people might have changed their mind. That is not democracy it is bullshit.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
Cameron and the Cameroons are all on message with the “we had no choice” message. To which I say Bollocks.
1. So remain wins by a small or even large margin? That’s the end of it then for a generation or more? Nope! Don’t insult our intelligence with that claim.
2. And there’s the gamble leave wins, and all hell breaks loose. Ossie was against the gamble at the time? Who else?
3. What did Ruth say in a parting shot, this mess came about because asking the nation that question was cop out, an abdication of true leadership? You spend years pandering to euro scepticism and then try to change all that in a few months? Where’s the credibility of your message when you spend years pandering to scepticism then try to sound euro friendly euro benefits all of a sudden, no credibility at all hence only thing you have is the frighteners with a project fear.
4. Referendums can take many forms. That particularly question, with leave narrowly winning but not knowing how popular different leave options are? Would those voting for a good deal leave really want no deal leave?
Cameron and friends you are on media this weekend spinning bollocks.
Q2: Gove also urged Cameron not to hold the referendum.
And I'm not sure Cameron comes out well from their subsequent falling out over Brexit. For all his myriad faults as a politician, Gove at least believes in something, and had fought his way to the top in the same way Mrs Thatcher had, and from the same sort of background.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
Imagine not realising Cameron was a moron
I know. My bad. In my defence I have long suspected - and said - he was complacent, lazy and not-as-smart-as-he-thought.
But yes, I did not realise he was a thicko. A superbly educated thicko. Astonishing
Cameron looked the part of PM but was never a fighter like Boris or Corbyn
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.
Anything that leads to revoke whether by referendum or not is extremism. The question was asked and the answer given. If you want another vote it should be on the form of Brexit not on whether we do or not.
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.
Not at all. Democracy is not just about asking the question. Anyone can do that with no intention of enacting the result. For it to be democratic you have to actually act on the result rather than just claiming it is too difficult, waiting 3 years and then trying to ask again because the people might have changed their mind. That is not democracy it is bullshit.
Doing something the public doesn't want any more = democracy
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
Imagine not realising Cameron was a moron
I know. My bad. In my defence I have long suspected - and said - he was complacent, lazy and not-as-smart-as-he-thought.
But yes, I did not realise he was a thicko. A superbly educated thicko. Astonishing
Can you give an example highlighted in the extracts?
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.
There was a majority. It is only the scum in Parliament who are refusing to act on it egged on by Remoaners outside
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.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
OGH kept running the line that "Look at the charts - no-one gives a toss about Europe as an issue." Whilst some of us were saying look at things that ARE a concern for the public- such as immigration. Those are EU concerns..... And we were right.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
I think the argument is if the SNP win a majority at Holyrood in 2021 then they can have another referendum (though of course a few SNP diehards say they can declare independence even without a referendum if they win a majority of Scottish Westminster or Holyrood seats with a manifesto commitment to Leave the UK)
Er, you're forgetting they already have a manifesto mandate at Holyrood - the Greens are also a pro-indy party and must be counted in.
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
And Cummings is even thicker.
No, he's not. He won the referendum, unlike Cameron.
Intriguingly, even the Sunday Times itself - which has serialised the Cameron memoir - is absolutely withering about his legacy.
After a long leader detailing his grievous errors, it concludes:
"Many millions of people, it should be said, are grateful that Mr Cameron accidentally gave this country the Brexit they had long craved. They will not thank him, however, for the chaos left in his wake. Life can be cruel for good chaps."
Quietly devastating.
Cameron won two referendums. I'm standing by my claim.
The Titanic made it most of the way across the Atlantic.
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.
Not at all. Democracy is not just about asking the question. Anyone can do that with no intention of enacting the result. For it to be democratic you have to actually act on the result rather than just claiming it is too difficult, waiting 3 years and then trying to ask again because the people might have changed their mind. That is not democracy it is bullshit.
Doing something the public doesn't want any more = democracy
By that logic we should have a fresh election every time the governing party falls behind in the opinion polls.
Here's the other thing about the Lib Dem position of straight to revoke.
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Indeed, to quote myself, I see they've already started on that tortured, idiotic logic.
To be honest, while I don't agree with either of those positions I don't really see the contradiction
The contradiction is according to the Lib Dems we had one referendum (indyref) which is over and should not be revisited and the result should be respected, and one referendum (EU Ref) where actually it's not over and we can revisit it and we do not need to respect the result if people vote Lib Dem in large numbers next time round.
If the Lib Dems want to take anti-independence and pro-Revoke positions there's nothing to stop them from doing that, but I don't see much internal consistency with them in how each of these things should be achieved and how the results of referendums should be considered.
I'm claiming that one! It only took the whole series to work...
Mind, Mitchell Marsh is there now and while he is usually unable to hit a beach ball with a tennis racket, he usually goes big against us. Could be there a while.
Yes. Ultimately, all five tests could have gone either way at different times. Neither side has dominated and only Smith - who is the main reason Australia didn't lose four nil - has truly stood out among individuals.
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
OGH kept running the line that "Look at the charts - no-one gives a toss about Europe as an issue." Whilst some of us were saying look at things that ARE a concern for the public- such as immigration. Those are EU concerns..... And we were right.
Yes, and the fact people responded to the vote as they did rather proves it was a issue for people. People are essentially saying Cameron is a wizard who conjured such feeling out of nothing if they don't think it was an issue. And if it was a matter of things being unleashed then it supports the argument that things were pent up and would be released in some way regardless. He still should have prepared more though.
So Australia will presumably bat through to tea without loss while scoring 100 runs to get nearly halfway to the target. Good afternoon for batting and a flat pitch.
Thanks for that.
I'm now saying Andy JS will get a fabuous fifth day of cricket tomorrow as the Aussie tail just refuse to get out.....
I thought my estimation of Cameron couldn't get much lower. Then I read today's extracts from his autobiography in the Sunday Times.
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
Man who doesnt like someone not impressed by their autobiography shocker, hold the front page!
Have you read the extracts? They are jaw dropping. Cameron, it turns out, is really really DIM. A very well educated idiot.
It explains so much.
And Cummings is even thicker.
No, he's not. He won the referendum, unlike Cameron.
Intriguingly, even the Sunday Times itself - which has serialised the Cameron memoir - is absolutely withering about his legacy.
After a long leader detailing his grievous errors, it concludes:
"Many millions of people, it should be said, are grateful that Mr Cameron accidentally gave this country the Brexit they had long craved. They will not thank him, however, for the chaos left in his wake. Life can be cruel for good chaps."
Quietly devastating.
Cameron won two referendums. I'm standing by my claim.
The Titanic made it most of the way across the Atlantic.
Brilliant thread. Very high quality debate on the pros and cons of ' just revoke ' as Lib Dem policy.
My two penneth is it's a return to the Liberal Democrats besetting sin. Great tactics but poor strategy. Revoing A50 is a great policy for the Liberal Democrats as long as they never have the power to implement it. And they won't win a majority at the next election so that's OK. And they've learned the lesson of Tuition Fees and pre compromised. We know the policy is for a majority government only and we are told what the fall back position is if they don't which they won't.
So the Lib Dems get clarity, purity, speed and simplicity for their Brexit offer. Great !
The problem is with FPTP someone eventually ( or in a few months ) get a majority in the Commons. And if Commons majorities for manifesto pledges can overturn referendum results.... Indeed the logic is why bother with referendums at all ? If you can revoke with a majority you can invoke with one.
It was inevitable the Lib Dems would move now the Labour Party is a referendum in all circumstances party. They have to have clear blue and gold water between them and Labour because their phoenix like rebirth is being powered by remainiacs. Revoking is the natural place to go. As long as they never have to do it and until someone else does. Then all hell will break loose.
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.
Not at all. Democracy is not just about asking the question. Anyone can do that with no intention of enacting the result. For it to be democratic you have to actually act on the result rather than just claiming it is too difficult, waiting 3 years and then trying to ask again because the people might have changed their mind. That is not democracy it is bullshit.
Doing something the public doesn't want any more = democracy
By that logic we should have a fresh election every time the governing party falls behind in the opinion polls.
So Australia will presumably bat through to tea without loss while scoring 100 runs to get nearly halfway to the target. Good afternoon for batting and a flat pitch.
Thanks for that.
I'm now saying Andy JS will get a fabuous fifth day of cricket tomorrow as the Aussie tail just refuse to get out.....
Do I get a knighthood or do I have to get a girlfriend and then beat her up?
On the other hand, it might be instructive to go back to 2013 and look at the various EU-related conversations on here, to see that the chatterati (within and without the Conservative Party) do not necessarily match that chart.
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
OGH kept running the line that "Look at the charts - no-one gives a toss about Europe as an issue." Whilst some of us were saying look at things that ARE a concern for the public- such as immigration. Those are EU concerns..... And we were right.
Yes, and the fact people responded to the vote as they did rather proves it was a issue for people. People are essentially saying Cameron is a wizard who conjured such feeling out of nothing if they don't think it was an issue. And if it was a matter of things being unleashed then it supports the argument that things were pent up and would be released in some way regardless. He still should have prepared more though.
Failure to prepare for a referendum loss looks even more stupid in the light of the hay that he could have been made with a Yellowhammer-type document, detailing the complexities of actually leaving (rather than nebulous arm-waving "end of the world" Project fear that wasn't believed).
Indeed the logic is why bother with referendums at all ?
I don't think our MPs need any more urging to be on board with that message. Were it not for the inconvenience of the first EU ref I doubt there'd be much talk of needing another, and who is going to be the next party to suggest a referendum on anything? Minus the SNP.
So Australia will presumably bat through to tea without loss while scoring 100 runs to get nearly halfway to the target. Good afternoon for batting and a flat pitch.
Thanks for that.
I'm now saying Andy JS will get a fabuous fifth day of cricket tomorrow as the Aussie tail just refuse to get out.....
Do I get a knighthood or do I have to get a girlfriend and then beat her up?
Arf!
Alternatively, just come up with a horribly complicated Brexit-in-name-only agreement that has no hope of getting through the House....
Comments
My God.
He wasn't just complacent and lazy. He was and is clueless. Helpless. Witless. A wildly over-promoted mediocrity. No wonder far smarter politicians - from Farage to Salmond - have just danced around him.
What's amazing is that he STILL comes across as faintly bewildered by it all. Like an officer class twit from the Raj in the 1930s, wondering why the Indian people aren't more grateful.
We were badly served. And Cameron has been badly served by his editors and friends. They should have prevented him from publishing this.
You couldn't make it up.
A Marxist with a bacon butty problem vs A statesman of the highest order. Indeed.
I can see those supporting Leave would mistrust this policy, probably enough to damn it, but it is the way people deal with this kind of situation in real life. As such, this is the sensible policy.
If you can set the question, select the voters, select the candidates, or choose to run the vote again, then even if everything about the voting itself is tickety-boo it can still be undemocratic.
It explains so much.
Harris, Bancroft are also failed and are surely to be discarded. What happens with Khawaja is more complex but he may well open with Burns in the next Test more or less by default. Wade as well seems out of his depth, one good innings under no pressure apart - Travis Head will presumably replace him but could do with more runs himself.
As for Tim Paine's batting, the less said the better. If he survives a cull it will surely only be due to the lack of alternatives to lead the side. Let's not forget, without Smith this is much the same batting unit that went nearly a year with just one Test century.
Australia and England, the awesomeness of Smith and the slightly less consistent flashes of brilliance from Stokes apart, have both looked brittle. Already talk is turning to England's need to rebuild, possibly under a new captain as well as a new coach. How long before there's a clamour for Australia to do the same?
Intriguingly, even the Sunday Times itself - which has serialised the Cameron memoir - is absolutely withering about his legacy.
After a long leader detailing his grievous errors, it concludes:
"Many millions of people, it should be said, are grateful that Mr Cameron accidentally gave this country the Brexit they had long craved. They will not thank him, however, for the chaos left in his wake. Life can be cruel for good chaps."
Quietly devastating.
41% Tory
High 20s% SDP Alliance (I think)
20s% Lab
Result: Tory majority of 140 although That Bloody Woman got fewer votes than in 1979.
Admittedly some seats in Surrey might now go from Tory to LibDem if some of the Labour and Tory vote switches to a pro-EU centre party. Surrey did after all have a pro-EU majority in many districts, as did Redwood's seat of Wokingham in Berks.
Whilst a major Labour breakaway has looked the most likely route to realignment for most of my lifetime, you can now at least see a possibility that the moderate wing of the Tory party comes over en masse, which would certainly change the dynamic.
It's wishful thinking, of course.
The question is whether members and voters follow the politicians. On PB this is clearly happening, but I suspect Pb isn’t representative.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_series.html?id=1;type=trophy
No party won the 2017 election - Theresa May remained in office courtesy of the DUP.
Fair enough to be against independence, but consent must be part of that.
I’ll give your an example why this is an important and dangerous time for the Lib Dem’s. Neither Chuck or Sam are in the Lib Dem’s because they want to be there, as their first choice, it’s necessity. In politics necessity can flip around. The SDP deserting left wing Labour is the example. 14 years later the election of a Labour Government to the right of many of those SDP refugees. Ditto TMay stood in front of party’s conference calling them the nasty party, a handful of years later under Cam and Ossie Tories could hardly be more moderate or progressive.
Australia are the more likely to improve because their domestic structure remains intact and it continues to produce strong candidates for the red ball game. Our structure is a mess and the County Championship no longer serves the purpose of producing Test class players. In fact it's hard to say what purpose it serves now except as a sop to critics of the short form game.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1172596340905467907?s=20
They tied themselves up in insane knots trying to justify why EU Ref2 should happen but indyref2 shouldn't happen.
If they're now arguing that they don't need EU Ref2 to revoke as long as people vote for them in sufficient numbers in a GE, are they (inadvertently or otherwise) arguing the SNP don't need indyref2 to pursue independence if people vote for them in sufficient number in a GE?
Somehow I doubt it.
But good luck to them trying to justify how they think they should be able to unilaterally revoke A50 without a second referendum but that the SNP can't even pursue a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Look, however well Corbyn did in terms of voteshare - and although he fell literally fractionally short of the magic 40% he still did better in terms of voteshare than any Labour leader of the last fifty years other than Blair - the fact is, he did badly in terms of seats. Not as badly as was hoped/feared, but still badly. Where Brown and Kinnock had an efficient voteshare, Corbyn piled up too many big majorities in safe seats like his own, and fell short in too many marginals like Stoke on Trent South.
Seven years into opposition, against a government implementing austerity measures and standing on a manifesto William Hague would have baulked at while running a campaign the Marx Brothers would have radically improved on, the fact is Labour should have had a decent chance of winning. But at no point was that a realistic possibility and their result was comparable to one they had after nearly 15 years in government wherein they oversaw a massive financial collapse and a series of bank runs.
Now, you are at liberty to consider that 'doing well.' I consider it 'losing and losing badly.' And the key point is that it was very much his fault that Labour were unable to break through because he is such a divisive figure.
That alone is an unforced error of Biblical proportions, for which Cameron - nice chap as he is - can never be forgiven.
Australia meanwhile have some outstanding bowlers but if I relied on an attack with the injury records of Hazlewood and Cummins I would not rest easy as Aussie bowling coach.
Who do you see in county cricket coming into Englands top six and backing up the useful test bowlers we have? Outside of the mercurial Banton I can’t think of anyone. Gubbins? Lace? Crawley?
Europhobia did not just spring into being suddenly at the end of 2015 in the public's mind. It did start to get outlets, however.
This is tomorrow’s history books:
UK needs to compromise with EU over the backstop for a deal. Good democrats and UK patriots know this. The alternative is digging ourselves deeper into the mire and goodness knows how many £B’s wasted. Simply wasted. Someone has to pay, households, business, schools, hospitals, pensions, for the length of time mitigating no deal EU exit. Yet Corbyn and Boris exploited the difficulty of that necessary compromise with their own desire for keys to number ten. Those two men have burnt that money. They have that in common. Equally guilty.
Edit - Gubbins is barely first class standard right now. Lace is injured. Crawley will I think play for England in the end.
It’s either going to crash and burn and hurt them or be a winner .
It’s not a compromise position , the danger is it’s seen as an extreme position just as the BP no deal is.
Although polls show a healthy amount of revokers these hypothetical polls don’t include that more Remainers might during a lengthy general election campaign come to the conclusion that staying in the EU needs a proper mandate .
Perhaps I’m not as Remain as I thought ! Which is bizarre , I’m staunchly pro EU and detest Brexit however I’m deeply uncomfortable with the Lib Dem proposal .
If I’m having these deep misgivings I can’t imagine my thoughts won’t be shared by many other Remainers .
(Though I agree he’s not quite top rank..)
Warner now has the undisputed all time record for least number of runs by an opener in a test series who played ten innings.
Just as well Aussie spots are not decided on World Cup rules...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49706904
But if they got 35% and win, then despite my hatred of Brexit, I think revoking would not be a good thing, for all the reasons already said.
Three weeks ago, the prorogation scam wasn't public knowledge.
Two weeks ago, the threat to expel unsupportive MPs had just been made.
The government defeats, the failure to set up a mid-October "Brexit is in peril. Defend it with all your might" election, the strangeness of exhausted Boris, they've happened in a fortnight.
There's surely more to come.
1. So remain wins by a small or even large margin? That’s the end of it then for a generation or more? Nope! Don’t insult our intelligence with that claim.
2. And there’s the gamble leave wins, and all hell breaks loose. Ossie was against the gamble at the time? Who else?
3. What did Ruth say in a parting shot, this mess came about because asking the nation that question was cop out, an abdication of true leadership? You spend years pandering to euro scepticism and then try to change all that in a few months? Where’s the credibility of your message when you spend years pandering to scepticism then try to sound euro friendly euro benefits all of a sudden, no credibility at all hence only thing you have is the frighteners with a project fear.
4. Referendums can take many forms. That particularly question, with leave narrowly winning but not knowing how popular different leave options are? Would those voting for a good deal leave really want no deal leave?
Cameron and friends you are on media this weekend spinning bollocks.
If they're not then they're very, very shortsighted,.
It is more an attempt by ultras to bounce the rest into a position more extreme - I would say *even* more extreme - than it is already.
Given the hysteria they have been exhibiting (Coup ! Hitler ! Mussolini ! Napoleon !) I have not got the foggiest idea what they will do.
But yes, I did not realise he was a thicko. A superbly educated thicko. Astonishing
A fine, sunny end to a beautiful summer of cricket.
And I'm not sure Cameron comes out well from their subsequent falling out over Brexit. For all his myriad faults as a politician, Gove at least believes in something, and had fought his way to the top in the same way Mrs Thatcher had, and from the same sort of background.
If the Lib Dems want to take anti-independence and pro-Revoke positions there's nothing to stop them from doing that, but I don't see much internal consistency with them in how each of these things should be achieved and how the results of referendums should be considered.
Mind, Mitchell Marsh is there now and while he is usually unable to hit a beach ball with a tennis racket, he usually goes big against us. Could be there a while. Yes. Ultimately, all five tests could have gone either way at different times. Neither side has dominated and only Smith - who is the main reason Australia didn't lose four nil - has truly stood out among individuals.
2-2 would be about right. If we can enforce it.
I'm now saying Andy JS will get a fabuous fifth day of cricket tomorrow as the Aussie tail just refuse to get out.....
My two penneth is it's a return to the Liberal Democrats besetting sin. Great tactics but poor strategy. Revoing A50 is a great policy for the Liberal Democrats as long as they never have the power to implement it. And they won't win a majority at the next election so that's OK. And they've learned the lesson of Tuition Fees and pre compromised. We know the policy is for a majority government only and we are told what the fall back position is if they don't which they won't.
So the Lib Dems get clarity, purity, speed and simplicity for their Brexit offer. Great !
The problem is with FPTP someone eventually ( or in a few months ) get a majority in the Commons. And if Commons majorities for manifesto pledges can overturn referendum results.... Indeed the logic is why bother with referendums at all ? If you can revoke with a majority you can invoke with one.
It was inevitable the Lib Dems would move now the Labour Party is a referendum in all circumstances party. They have to have clear blue and gold water between them and Labour because their phoenix like rebirth is being powered by remainiacs. Revoking is the natural place to go. As long as they never have to do it and until someone else does. Then all hell will break loose.
Alternatively, just come up with a horribly complicated Brexit-in-name-only agreement that has no hope of getting through the House....