Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
In All Out War it’s said that Cummings reckoned that remain’s best slogan was “a leap in the dark.” Of course, that would have required discipline and not making up numbers like £4,300 a year worse off.
Dunno, the £350 million a week worked OK for him. And that was a flat-out, demonstrable and proven lie rather than a just a rather foolish guess.
£350 million was called out at the time. The problem was to most people the net figure of £200 million still sounds like a lot of money. Rather than saying the money would not go to the NHS remainers fell into a trap.
The Lib Dems have needlessly thrown away half the ground of being the pro-EU party, for no advantage. It's strategically stupid, and obviously so.
You may well be correct. The other possibility, though, is that many Remainers only supported a 2nd referendum because it looked the most likely way to achieve the goal of remaining. Now the Lib Dems are offering a different route to the goal which may or may not be easier to achieve - this might be very attractive. I can't guess which way it will play though - I don't even know which way I would have voted had I been at conference, to be totally honest with you, as I'd love to see Brexit revoked but I have concerns about the policy which are not directly related to the issue that it's trying to solve.
The other thing is that the Remain subsection of the "Bored of Brexit" vote, like most others in the country do not relish a further conflict and lies ridden second referendum. I think the Revoke petition was driven by this vote.
i think it highly unlikely that there is an LD majority government with PM swinson, so the policy is more a stall being set out.
Oh yes, the petition - I'd nearly forgotten about that. I guess the LibDems are banking on everyone who signed the Revoke petition will now be queueing up to vote for them.
How many of them would be eligible to? How many of those signing the petition were EU nationals or under 18? How many of the remainder would be make the move from signing an online petition (easy) to actually registering and going to vote (slightly more effort needed)?
I don't see England having another breakthrough this side of the new ball. Wade's looking comfortable and Cummings is setting his stall to die in a ditch.
So what's your prediction for the next GE, Ydoethur? We need to know.
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn to have exactly equal numbers so they both win!
I don't see England having another breakthrough this side of the new ball. Wade's looking comfortable and Cummings is setting his stall to die in a ditch.
So what's your prediction for the next GE, Ydoethur? We need to know.
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn to have exactly equal numbers so they both win!
I don't see England having another breakthrough this side of the new ball. Wade's looking comfortable and Cummings is setting his stall to die in a ditch.
still got it.
can you predict watford won't overturn arsenals lead next please?
Watford overturn Arsenal's lead? You've got to be aving a giraffe. They wouldn't do that even if all of Arsenal's players were turned to stone by a passing witch!
I don't see England having another breakthrough this side of the new ball. Wade's looking comfortable and Cummings is setting his stall to die in a ditch.
still got it.
can you predict watford won't overturn arsenals lead next please?
Watford overturn Arsenal's lead? You've got to be aving a giraffe. They wouldn't do that even if all of Arsenal's players were turned to stone by a passing witch!
(Will that do?)
Perfect. Job done. Thank you.....
You're most welcome.
By the way, what was it about? Was it something to do with sport?
Good to see Priti sorting out the surge of Channel crossings by illegal migrants. The numbers this week worse than when Jav called NATIONAL EMERGENCY ahead of his leadership bid.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The trouble is all these things would never appear on the front page of The Sun or the Daily Mail. Instead some sort of bollocks about bendy bananas or low powered vacuum cleaners would.
No they're not unusual. e.g. Thatcher's memoirs are minor masterpieces. Lots of politicians, Left and Right, write very fine books, witb precious insight.
Cameron's memoirs are revealing, but not in the way he intended - if these extracts are anything to go by.
I thought Thatcher's memoirs fairly wooden, and nowhere near as interesting as (for example) Lawson's
I thought the first volume of her memoirs was superb. Lucid, fascinating, wise. I believe she did get a pro writer to help, though.
Typical of Cameron that he didn't think he needed professional assistance. Perhaps he thought "I'd be rather good as a writer".
Denis Healey's were pretty classy, though not especially illuminating about politics. People read these things partly for historical insights but many mainly for the "omigod is THAT what he was thinking?" moments. Cameron's sounds quite good for that, as was Blair's with his scathing attack on his own FOI policy.
I enjoyed Healey's very much too. Roy Jenkins was pretty good. David Steel's was not so great.
I've heard good things about Kenneth Clarke's autobiography, but haven't read it.
On the subject of autobiographies, Nigel Lawson's The View From Number Eleven is the best in-depth look at the job of the Chancellor, and how and why economic decisions are made. It doesn't tell you much about the man, but if you want to learn about the intersection of politics and economics, it's superb. (And probably had a substantial influence on my political and economic views.)
Still though it’s risky . The Lib Dem message could have still been you can’t trust Corbyn on Brexit .
You can trust him to be slippery and indecisive. This is his policy:
I'm no Remoaner but I don't want us Leaving I support both sides, while both have me heaving In going through life I continually find It's a terrible business to make up one's mind So in spite of all comments, reproach and predictions, I firmly adhere to unsettled convictions.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The aim of the Eastern expansion was the UK policy of widening not deepening. Unfortunately the EU did both.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The aim of the Eastern expansion was the UK policy of widening not deepening. Unfortunately the EU did both.
Spot on.
It's easy to forget how intense were the debates over widening or deepening. Either would have been better than both.
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
Still gobsmacking the undeclared financial gifts were not disqualifying
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
It isn't the FBI's fault. The White House strictly limited the bounds of the investigation to proscribed witnesses.
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
It isn't the FBI's fault. The White House strictly limited the bounds of the investigation to proscribed witnesses.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The problem with all of these is that none of them feel like successes to the British man on the street. Tying our hands when big companies go bust, deregulating the bankers Europe-wide and letting in all the Eastern Europeans... it is hard to build a campaign round them!
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
Still gobsmacking the undeclared financial gifts were not disqualifying
There are two cases where he allegedly got his... errr... manhood out and forced ladies to touch it.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
It isn't the FBI's fault. The White House strictly limited the bounds of the investigation to proscribed witnesses.
Do you mean 'prescribed?'
This is Trump’s White House. It could be either or both.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The problem with all of these is that none of them feel like successes to the British man on the street. Tying our hands when big companies go bust, deregulating the bankers Europe-wide and letting in all the Eastern Europeans... it is hard to build a campaign round them!
Certainly Brexiteers seem to particularly object to things we led on. It may be because our own governments weren't listening to the people, or it may be that people have changed their minds.
My point though was that we had influence, indeed arguably the most influence. Pooled sovereignty indeed.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
I think the issue is that we remember our failures, and forget our successes.
The EU's restrictions on state aid, that are such an anathema to Jeremy Corbyn, were an Anglo-Dutch initiative, which co-opted the Germans, and infuriated the French and the Italians. It was a UK policy success.
But we don't see it, because nothing changed for the UK. What changed was what everyone else did.
Likewise, financial services regulation across the EU is almost entirely a British creation. The "passport" inevitably results in the lowest touch regulator ending up in charge, as everyone chooses to domicile there.
Again, it was a success for the UK. But we don't see it.
And of couse, the Single Market was Maggies policy, and we strongly favoured the Eastern countries joining.
The problem with all of these is that none of them feel like successes to the British man on the street. Tying our hands when big companies go bust, deregulating the bankers Europe-wide and letting in all the Eastern Europeans... it is hard to build a campaign round them!
The state aid rules were about stopping a situation where each European country ends up in a spiral of increasing state aid as they all try and out subsidise each other so the last remaining jobs in - for example the steel industry - are in their country.
The EU case to the WTO re Boeing subsidies is going to be settled in December/January, and will almost certainly allow the EU to hit the US with retaliatiary tariffs. (What with both the EU and the US being extremely guilty of subsidising their domestic aircraft manufacturers. As, for that matter, are the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Brazilians and the Canadians.)
The EU case to the WTO re Boeing subsidies is going to be settled in December/January, and will almost certainly allow the EU to hit the US with retaliatiary tariffs. (What with both the EU and the US being extremely guilty of subsidising their domestic aircraft manufacturers. As, for that matter, are the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Brazilians and the Canadians.)
Yes. It does not bode well for international trade.
(Is WTO arbitration still going to be functional by then ?)
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
The headlines for the Lib Dems are perfect. Unambiguous; no explanation needed.
If you want this nonsense to end; vote Lib Dem.
You think revocation would be the end? That's cute!
Of course it would. Then only the crazies will continue to bang on about the EU. Just like before the referendum.
Regardless, the Lib Dems are not going to win so there will be no revoke. This is simply to maximize their vote to hopefully hold the balance of power.
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
This is the guy Trump wanted, and none of the revelations are likely to change that. Far from it.
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
This is the guy Trump wanted, and none of the revelations are likely to change that. Far from it.
Yep, the self selected nature of internet polling panels has always been a concern. That was why phone polls were considered more reliable. That proved wrong in 2016. Whether it is true overall is hard to say. We get few phone polls now.
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
There must have easily been a dozen candidates equally as partisan hard line Republican but without the baggage.
@Foxy I trust the YouGov panel the most because it is arguably the most famous online pollster that is often in these ‘earn money at home’ articles in the mainstream press. I therefore deduce they have a very large and varied panel to choose from across the spectrum from those not interested in politics at all to those who spend hours a day on political blogs...
The EU case to the WTO re Boeing subsidies is going to be settled in December/January, and will almost certainly allow the EU to hit the US with retaliatiary tariffs. (What with both the EU and the US being extremely guilty of subsidising their domestic aircraft manufacturers. As, for that matter, are the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Brazilians and the Canadians.)
Yes. It does not bode well for international trade.
(Is WTO arbitration still going to be functional by then ?)
The Lib Dems’ usual problem is gaining attention. The new policy is therefore a great success.
Thanks for the review Viewcode - sounds a lot more entertaining than I expected......meanwhile the David Cameron five minutes of hate continues unabated:
The problem with "leading not leaving" the EU had been there aren't any compelling examples of the UK doing it. PMs for decades have failed to break the French-German axis at the core of it, which means we were always left to agree or diagree after they had made a decision.
When we rejoin it is critical we insist on having British-German meetings ahead of each European summit, just like the French-German ones.
To use just one example - was not the expansion of the EU to include much of Eastern Europe driven by the UK?
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
This is the guy Trump wanted, and none of the revelations are likely to change that. Far from it.
Doesn't matter. As long as Trump is there and the GOP control the Senate he is safe, unless they decide to take an opportunity to pick someone else.
Impeachment would only come into play if the Dems got close to 67 Senators and there was a smoking gun.
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
@Foxy I trust the YouGov panel the most because it is arguably the most famous online pollster that is often in these ‘earn money at home’ articles in the mainstream press. I therefore deduce they have a very large and varied panel to choose from across the spectrum from those not interested in politics at all to those who spend hours a day on political blogs...
I am on the Yougov panel. The advantage of such big panels, and so much data on them, that they don't have such problems of false recall, and can look at trends over time.
The false recall issue is a genuine one when adjusting, but alsoo the false recallers may be a particularly interesting subgroup themselves. How much is conscious and how much unconscious? How fervent are these converts?
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
About 27% want to revoke with Opinium, that could not win the LDs a majority but it could see them beat Corbyn Labour in voteshare which is Swinson's main aim this time I think
6m+ prepared to sign a petition to revoke. Labour got 13m in the 2017 election. Seems like a pretty good strategy to me.
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
I can’t see it costing them any votes. People opposing No Deal will still vote LibDem if they think it will help beat a Tory. Elsewhere it doesn’t matter.
it might not cost them votes they've already banked. It will definitely stop some wavering softy Remainers from moving to them, from Labour or the Tories.
Lots of Remainers are dismayed by the idea of simply ignoring and nullifying the referendum. Rightly so.
Whatever else happens, looking at the current wreckage of UK Politics, the £bn pissed away, I think it is safe to say the referendum was not "ignored".
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
This is the guy Trump wanted, and none of the revelations are likely to change that. Far from it.
Doesn't matter. As long as Trump is there and the GOP control the Senate he is safe, unless they decide to take an opportunity to pick someone else.
Impeachment would only come into play if the Dems got close to 67 Senators and there was a smoking gun.
I think this is like Roe vs Wade. It was ostensibly a victory for "liberals" and resulted in abortion being legal across the US.
The reality was that it was a disaster for the Democratic party. It created a Religious Right voting block, that voted principally on one thing.
Brett Kavanaugh is a one man disaster zone for the Republicans. Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, used to have 60-70% approval ratings. She's now sub 40%.
The drip, drip of these stories hits Republicans with women. And the fact that they do nothing (and can do nothing) to get rid of him is a slow moving car crash for them.
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
Nothing, as such, but how convenient for parties previously thinking a majority of the voting public was necessary for certain types of change, deciding that it is easier to get 30-40% of the voting public in order to do it instead.
Of course that is how most of our changes are done.
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
Sir, sir, is it ‘nothing’ sir?
Sir, what is anti-democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of No Deal, and then doing it. Is it still "Nothing", Sir?
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
Nothing, as such, but how convenient for parties previously thinking a majority of the voting public was necessary for certain types of change, deciding that it is easier to get 30-40% of the voting public in order to do it instead.
Of course that is how most of our changes are done.
And, to be fair to the Lib Dems, they have been in favour of PR forever, as they recognise the problem. it would be interesting to see how they actually proceeded, were they to win the next election.
This policy will split the Remainer vote though, revoke with the LDs for die hard Remainers is a better option than referendum on a Labour Brexit with Corbyn.
While the Leaver vote was split between Deal with May or No Deal with the Brexit Party, Boris has largely united it behind the Tories on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal platform.
So the main winner today under FPTP is Boris
While I'm tempted to say "you would day that, wouldn't you?" I'd note the 14% swing from Con to LD in the latest ComRes but I'm sure you'll quote Opinium back at me so fine.
The policy is to Revoke if the Party wins a Parliamentary majority otherwise it's to support a second vote and continue to block a No Deal which is completely consistent. Why wouldn't those wishing to Remain (more than 10% I suspect) have a clear and unambiguous voice?
The Conservatives are currently riding both the horses of No Deal AND leaving with a Deal but the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide which horse they are really on. With No Deal blocked, the options then become leaving with a WA (really?) or storming off in a huff with the traditional Conservative attitude of evading responsibility and leaving the tough decisions to others.
Of course more than 10% want to Remain. It's nearer 50% than 10%.
But how many want to simply Revoke, and sod democracy? 10%? 15%? And how many will be comfortable with a party that espouses the cancellation of votes?
It's a deeply stupid policy.
What is anti democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of "Revoke" and then doing it?
Sir, sir, is it ‘nothing’ sir?
Sir, what is anti-democratic about winning a GE with a central manifesto pledge of No Deal, and then doing it. Is it still "Nothing", Sir?
Yes. Nothing anti-democratic about a Corbyn government either.
Considering that SCOTUS is for life, impeaching a Justice while your own party controls the Senate and Presidency would be interesting. But I can't see 67 Senators ever voting to impeach, but if Kavanaugh did get impeached then the GOP could regret rushing through such a flawed character when they could have gotten someone else.
This is the guy Trump wanted, and none of the revelations are likely to change that. Far from it.
Doesn't matter. As long as Trump is there and the GOP control the Senate he is safe, unless they decide to take an opportunity to pick someone else.
Impeachment would only come into play if the Dems got close to 67 Senators and there was a smoking gun.
I think this is like Roe vs Wade. It was ostensibly a victory for "liberals" and resulted in abortion being legal across the US.
The reality was that it was a disaster for the Democratic party. It created a Religious Right voting block, that voted principally on one thing.
.
This isn't true. The anti-abortion voting block only came about in the 80s long after Roe vs Wade. It came as the Southern Baptists suffered numerous defeats over their overt racism in segregated schooling and needed a new cultural wedge issue to sieze on to maintain power.
Indeed 2 years before Roe vs Wade the Southern Baptist Convention settled on an abortion position pretty much as liberal as the Supreme Court decision went for. Four years after Roe vs Wade the SBC affirmed the legality and morality of Roe vs Wade.
There's an argument that the best result would have been Remain 50.1%, Leave 49.9% because then the EU may have had to realise how serious things were getting, not just with regard to the UK but also with other countries like Italy, Hungary, Greece, etc.
I made that precise argument on here in the weeks leading up to the vote. That that is exactly what the British electorate were intending to achieve.
Catching up on Cameron in The Times. It’s tragic. He had no idea of the country he led. And he knows he will be remembered for just one thing. His only consolation is that he did not, quite, mess up the Scottish independence referendum. One day we may get passed Brexit, but the break-up of the UK would have been forever. That will be Johnson’s legacy instead.
The headlines for the Lib Dems are perfect. Unambiguous; no explanation needed.
If you want this nonsense to end; vote Lib Dem.
You think revocation would be the end? That's cute!
It’s the perfect question to destroy the lib dems with from this moment on, so what exactly do you think happens after you revoke?
Easy. We stop wasting all this money on ghost ferry contracts, medicine stockpiling, charter flights, etc. and spend it on making this country better such as NHS and infrastructure investments.
Comments
And now you go and spoil it.
He would deserve it.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1173286230563463168?s=21
By the way, what was it about? Was it something to do with sport?
WORLD'S GONE MAD!
It is without doubt the most complete pile of crap this side of a Boris statement of loyalty to a colleague.
It is imperative that PB reflect the lack of unity and consensus in the nation.
@viewcode - "Lock Him Up."
Nothing personal you understand ....
I don't know why people think I'm an elitist and snob.
But I am a poor teacher.
I've heard good things about Kenneth Clarke's autobiography, but haven't read it.
"How do you get away with doing it for the money"
Although I do remember somebody asked a prostitute that question...
I'm no Remoaner but I don't want us Leaving
I support both sides, while both have me heaving
In going through life I continually find
It's a terrible business to make up one's mind
So in spite of all comments, reproach and predictions,
I firmly adhere to unsettled convictions.
(Apologies to a liberal MP of a century ago).
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1173290967773982722?s=19
It's easy to forget how intense were the debates over widening or deepening. Either would have been better than both.
What's worse, is that in one case there were apparently a good number of witnesses, some of whom contacted the FBI during the investigation, but they were not followed up on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1173207629260316672?s=19
https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-poised-to-hit-eu-with-billions-in-tariffs-after-airbus-win/
Any Trump nominee should be embarrassed to be seen engaging in graft on such a petty scale.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/nyt-deletes-bizarre-brett-kavanaugh-tweet-about-having-a-penis-thrust-in-your-face/
My point though was that we had influence, indeed arguably the most influence. Pooled sovereignty indeed.
If you want this nonsense to end; vote Lib Dem.
(Is WTO arbitration still going to be functional by then ?)
Regardless, the Lib Dems are not going to win so there will be no revoke. This is simply to maximize their vote to hopefully hold the balance of power.
Yep, the self selected nature of internet polling panels has always been a concern. That was why phone polls were considered more reliable. That proved wrong in 2016. Whether it is true overall is hard to say. We get few phone polls now.
Bizarre choice.
Impeachment would only come into play if the Dems got close to 67 Senators and there was a smoking gun.
The false recall issue is a genuine one when adjusting, but alsoo the false recallers may be a particularly interesting subgroup themselves. How much is conscious and how much unconscious? How fervent are these converts?
The reality was that it was a disaster for the Democratic party. It created a Religious Right voting block, that voted principally on one thing.
Brett Kavanaugh is a one man disaster zone for the Republicans. Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, used to have 60-70% approval ratings. She's now sub 40%.
The drip, drip of these stories hits Republicans with women. And the fact that they do nothing (and can do nothing) to get rid of him is a slow moving car crash for them.
Of course that is how most of our changes are done.
Buy the book now? Might just. (After The Testaments.)
it would be interesting to see how they actually proceeded, were they to win the next election.
Both very very bad for the country, mind.
Indeed 2 years before Roe vs Wade the Southern Baptist Convention settled on an abortion position pretty much as liberal as the Supreme Court decision went for. Four years after Roe vs Wade the SBC affirmed the legality and morality of Roe vs Wade.
And I was complemented on it by....SeanT.
We need political leadership to steer the UK out of this political crisis, not glib, self promoting gimmicks that would actually make it worse.