Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Swinson’s great LD gamble – making cancelling Brexit party pol

135678

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
  • Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434

    Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.

    I think so too and I think most people agree, otherwise there would be more people willing to compromise on a soft Brexit or even god forbid accept a no deal disaster believing it would be short term. The very strength by which people have fought against any Brexit shows they think any kind of exit may well be it, for a very long time. Thank goodness they had some useful allies in the leave ranks.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    Jesus H Christ. If a party had a policy of adopting the dollar, or slaughtering every cat in the UK, and were elected on that platform, then OF COURSE they have every right to do those things, however much some people would despise it*.

    That's why manifestos are - by and large - moderate, because anything extreme is toxic and doesn't get them elected.

    * I'm ok with the cat thing.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    madmacs said:

    As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).

    The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.

    Yes, the problem would come if the Lib Dems (should it ever happen) win an overall majority with 32% of the vote and 9 million votes, and proceeded to use that as a mandate for Revoke.
    Other parties don't have an issue with plurality mandates.
  • Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    Naive
  • Sorry if I am the 100th person to mention this, but presumably the LibDems will be supportive of Scottish Independence without a referendum if the SNP and Scottish Greens have a majority in Holyrood following the next Scottish election.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    Naive
    Brilliant counterargument. Not.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    The Lib Dems aren't going to get many better shots at replacing Labour [which must be the long-term strategic goal] than this.

    Disagree. I think they could have stuck to a second referendum - but differentiated from Labour as being the "Sensible Left" - as opposed to the bat-shit crazy left of Corbyn's Labour that gets itself investigated for being anti-semitic.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That's the precedent already set. Majority governments get their manifesto policies through. That's the sauce for the goose, and just because a gander has suddenly turned up...

    If you suddenly don't like this constitution, good. Join the campaign to have it changed. You'll find the Lib Dems willing allies in that battle, even if there much else you don't like about their platform.
    If not, jog on. Your special pleading has no weight.

  • The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicated on No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.
    ...

    Well, quite. Someone should have pointed that out last November to Boris, Baker, Rees-Mogg and the rest of the gang.
  • isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,274
    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That’s one of my concerns too.

    It seems to me that a referendum is the least worst option now available.
  • On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.

    I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.

    Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.

    It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.

    (*) And IMO is unlikely.
    If they can't make it happen, why mention it?
    Because the minor parties always have to play to win: they have to say what would happen *when* they win, even if it is unlikely. Otherwise they're leaving themselves open to the questions: "So what happens when you win? Oh, so you don't think you'll win?"

    It's a fallback position.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Anorak said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    Jesus H Christ. If a party had a policy of adopting the dollar, or slaughtering every cat in the UK, and were elected on that platform, then OF COURSE they have every right to do those things, however much some people would despise it*.

    That's why manifestos are - by and large - moderate, because anything extreme is toxic and doesn't get them elected.

    * I'm ok with the cat thing.
    (Harsh on Cat Deeley....)
  • In the wake of changing her party's Brexit policy, could Swinson also this week please get around to changing her party's name?

    Continued reference to her party as "Democrats" is frankly unwarranted. It is clearly not a party that believes in participatory democracy except where it generates the right result. Nor does it appear to believe in representative democracy, in so far as it has just helped block a general election that would have established whether the country was still willing to be governed by parliamentary representatives mostly at odds with the policy that 52% of their constituents voted for. And to make exercises in representative democracy as rare as possible, her party was also instrumental in putting in place a 2/3rds rather than majority threshold to try and avoid those exercises more than once every 5 years.

    Whatever they choose to call themselves, for now on for me it's "Liberals" or "Libs" or "Swinson's Party" but not "Liberal Democrats" or "Lib Dems" or even just "LDs".

    Absurd. Preposterous. To repeat the question asked earlier "are you lot pissed"?

    The idea that in a parliamentary democracy the elected government doesn't have a mandate to carry out the policies in its manifesto is batshit crazy.

    If you want a dictatorship just openly say so and stop dancing around it.
  • Anorak said:

    Byronic said:

    Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".

    Horrible. Ugh. Puke.

    Being elected on a policy platform in a free and fair election, and then enacting those policies is "nullifying democracy".

    Right. Got it.
    35% of the electorate nullifying 52% of the electorate.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Sorry if I am the 100th person to mention this, but presumably the LibDems will be supportive of Scottish Independence without a referendum if the SNP and Scottish Greens have a majority in Holyrood following the next Scottish election.

    No, they won't. That is the point at which the Lib Dems are hypocrites.
    I'll still vote for them, but it doesn't sit easily with me.
  • Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    YES. I ABSOLUTELY would be fine with any government carrying out its manifesto pledges which had been elected into government because that is democracy. Democracy is a principle, you either believe in it or you don't, and thats regardless of what the outcome of that democratic vote is.

    Are you sure you're not pissed?
  • "My guess is that this will have been researched at some length..."

    This is absurd. As the series of following car-crash TV interviews with Ed Davey downward this morning attests.

    If this site wishes to be taken seriously as a political website, let alone a political betting website, then it seriously needs to start including the LibDems in its critical assessments.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
  • Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That's the precedent already set. Majority governments get their manifesto policies through. That's the sauce for the goose, and just because a gander has suddenly turned up...

    If you suddenly don't like this constitution, good. Join the campaign to have it changed. You'll find the Lib Dems willing allies in that battle, even if there much else you don't like about their platform.
    If not, jog on. Your special pleading has no weight.
    There's a big difference between a majority government (but one with less than 50% of the popular vote) implementing its policies, and a similar majority government overturning a referendum result.
  • I notice that the big defection from Labour turned out to be a damp squib, in the end being some minor flunky of Sadiq Khan
  • The Lib Dems aren't going to get many better shots at replacing Labour [which must be the long-term strategic goal] than this.

    Yes, that is spot on. Labour is essentially a coalition of three groups - historic WWC who vote Labour because that is what they do as WWC, BMAE voters and the well-educated, mainly urban-based, professional classes who either like to think that voting Labour makes them more socially conscious or work in the public sector and so like Labour because of its spending pledges.

    The Conservatives are obviously going after the first segment while Swinson's policy is likely to attract a good chunk of the third part.

    To be fair to both Johnson and Swinson, they have realised that political realignments are seeing a radical once in a generation, possibly once in a century change and have firmly and decisively set out their stalls. Labour, meanwhile, is sitting on the fence.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,445
    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    I'm sure you are being deliberately provacative.

    You are presuming that because I believe Brexit is very bad for the UK then somehow I believe that passing the WA would be undemocratic. I do not. That is democracy and that is politics. If the LDs get into a position where they can implement their "no Brexit" policy, that will have been due to democracy. They will have to either convince a huge number of voters to vote for them, or they will have to negotiate with Labour and the SNP. Again if they manage to do that that is politics in a democracy.

    What is undemocratic is your attemps at siliencing my opinion, simply because of the 2016 Referendum result.

  • The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicated on No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.
    ...

    Well, quite. Someone should have pointed that out last November to Boris, Baker, Rees-Mogg and the rest of the gang.
    Nonsense.

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal. The anti no-deal campaigners in Parliament have made a no-deal or a bad deal much more likely.
  • OT David Cameron's football team is in action tonight as the team in claret and blue take on the team in claret and blue. Aston Villa vs West Ham United.
    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49630159
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,187
    Sorry. Can't vote LD with that policy.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,566
    edited September 2019

    On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.

    I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.

    Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.

    It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.

    (*) And IMO is unlikely.
    If they can't make it happen, why mention it?
    Because the minor parties always have to play to win: they have to say what would happen *when* they win, even if it is unlikely. Otherwise they're leaving themselves open to the questions: "So what happens when you win? Oh, so you don't think you'll win?"

    It's a fallback position.
    The trouble is that it gets them into a knot. Do they support a second referendum or not? The answer seems to be Yes in practice, No in the far-flung reaches of the probability space where they get a majority. This is going to be hard to explain (as well as being dubious in democratic terms, as others have explained).
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,445

    The Lib Dems aren't going to get many better shots at replacing Labour [which must be the long-term strategic goal] than this.

    Yes, that is spot on. Labour is essentially a coalition of three groups - historic WWC who vote Labour because that is what they do as WWC, BMAE voters and the well-educated, mainly urban-based, professional classes who either like to think that voting Labour makes them more socially conscious or work in the public sector and so like Labour because of its spending pledges.

    The Conservatives are obviously going after the first segment while Swinson's policy is likely to attract a good chunk of the third part.

    To be fair to both Johnson and Swinson, they have realised that political realignments are seeing a radical once in a generation, possibly once in a century change and have firmly and decisively set out their stalls. Labour, meanwhile, is sitting on the fence.
    I agree with this, but the voting situation is blurred by the constiuency boundaries and the FPTP system.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,274
    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That's the precedent already set. Majority governments get their manifesto policies through. That's the sauce for the goose, and just because a gander has suddenly turned up...

    If you suddenly don't like this constitution, good. Join the campaign to have it changed. You'll find the Lib Dems willing allies in that battle, even if there much else you don't like about their platform.
    If not, jog on. Your special pleading has no weight.
    The difference here is, it seems to me, that Brexit started with a referendum and therefore its conclusion - whether that is to leave on the basis of a deal, or without one or revoke- has to be on the same basis. It’s not ideal. But we are where we are.

    Obviously, if the Lib Dems won they could do this. But let’s assume they don’t, Britain is out - what then will their policy be? Rejoin?
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    Except we are heading headlong for no-deal, and during the referendum campaign leavers were giving all sorts of fluffy views of Brexit - and many of those were for a deal, e.g. for EEA or a Norway-style deal.

    No-deal - and especially the chaotic, disorganised no-deal we'll be getting - is a bait-and-switch on the electorate. It can be claimed to be undemocratic, and I have some sympathy with that view.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That's the precedent already set. Majority governments get their manifesto policies through. That's the sauce for the goose, and just because a gander has suddenly turned up...

    If you suddenly don't like this constitution, good. Join the campaign to have it changed. You'll find the Lib Dems willing allies in that battle, even if there much else you don't like about their platform.
    If not, jog on. Your special pleading has no weight.
    There's a big difference between a majority government (but one with less than 50% of the popular vote) implementing its policies, and a similar majority government overturning a referendum result.
    That's a difference of whether it is a good idea, not whether they can do it and have what, under our system, amounts to a mandate to do it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    That's the precedent already set. Majority governments get their manifesto policies through. That's the sauce for the goose, and just because a gander has suddenly turned up...

    If you suddenly don't like this constitution, good. Join the campaign to have it changed. You'll find the Lib Dems willing allies in that battle, even if there much else you don't like about their platform.
    If not, jog on. Your special pleading has no weight.
    The difference here is, it seems to me, that Brexit started with a referendum and therefore its conclusion - whether that is to leave on the basis of a deal, or without one or revoke- has to be on the same basis. It’s not ideal. But we are where we are.

    Obviously, if the Lib Dems won they could do this. But let’s assume they don’t, Britain is out - what then will their policy be? Rejoin?
    Probably because it plays to it’s core vote and could well represent 20%+ of the electorate
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434

    I notice that the big defection from Labour turned out to be a damp squib, in the end being some minor flunky of Sadiq Khan

    I didn't even know it had occurred!
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,445
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    And you want to ignore 16.1 Million voters.

    Look at yourself. Brexit has driven *you* mad
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Can’t see how a government winning a majority implementing its manifesto can be thought of as a bad thing. It would be our bad luck if Lib Dem’s won a narrow majority and cancelled Brexit, but what can you do?

    Whining, stamping your feet and refusing to accept the result when you lose is for Remainers... be better than that!
  • It seems clear in Brexit land that there is only one way to preserve democracy. We should accept that the will of the people was cast in stone in 2016, and simply prorogue parliament "for the duration of the emergency". That way the Prime Minister can enact the will of the people without the people getting in the way. Government simply issues propaganda about how marvellous things are ("DUTY FREE IS BACK") and silences the voices of the Remoaners who don't recognise the democratic mandate of the PM by treasonously demanding a democratic vote.
  • eristdoof said:

    The Lib Dems aren't going to get many better shots at replacing Labour [which must be the long-term strategic goal] than this.

    Yes, that is spot on. Labour is essentially a coalition of three groups - historic WWC who vote Labour because that is what they do as WWC, BMAE voters and the well-educated, mainly urban-based, professional classes who either like to think that voting Labour makes them more socially conscious or work in the public sector and so like Labour because of its spending pledges.

    The Conservatives are obviously going after the first segment while Swinson's policy is likely to attract a good chunk of the third part.

    To be fair to both Johnson and Swinson, they have realised that political realignments are seeing a radical once in a generation, possibly once in a century change and have firmly and decisively set out their stalls. Labour, meanwhile, is sitting on the fence.
    I agree with this, but the voting situation is blurred by the constiuency boundaries and the FPTP system.
    Yes, that is true. I think some of the real value in the constituency bets at the next GE could lie in Labour seats with extremely large majorities where the demographic is relatively wealthy / low BAME vote e.g. Manchester Withington
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    Except we are heading headlong for no-deal, and during the referendum campaign leavers were giving all sorts of fluffy views of Brexit - and many of those were for a deal, e.g. for EEA or a Norway-style deal.

    No-deal - and especially the chaotic, disorganised no-deal we'll be getting - is a bait-and-switch on the electorate. It can be claimed to be undemocratic, and I have some sympathy with that view.
    It's not the fault of the electorate that we are governed by cowards, morons and hypocrites. who refuse to pass an EU deal, even when it is offered, three times. it is not the fault of the electorate that MPs are voting down a Deal because half of them secretly want to Remain, and another chunk are fetishising the worst deal possible.

    It is not the fault of the voters that parliament is not fit-for-purpose. So we must get rid of it, and start again, with an election.
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.

    I believe in Parliamentary democracy, so I believe that closing down Parliament is a bad thing. I believe in Parliamentary democracy so I believe that parties that win a majority at a general election can implement the policies they put forward in their manifestos.

    The LibDems are not going to get a majority solely with the votes of posh people living in London.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,899
    Anorak said:

    Admirably clear policy. Unlike Labour's dog's dinner.

    How it plays out at the ballot box remains (geddit) to be seen, but it undeniably gives a lot of disaffected people a political home to go to.

    [Edit: poor old SquareRoot]

    Easy to come up with rubbish like this when you know you have absolutely no chance of ever needing to implement it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,852

    madmacs said:

    As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).

    The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.

    Yes, the problem would come if the Lib Dems (should it ever happen) win an overall majority with 32% of the vote and 9 million votes, and proceeded to use that as a mandate for Revoke.
    That would indeed be something of a problem.

    In such (fairly unlikely) circumstances, I would hope that they sought the assent of other remain MPs in Parliament before acting.
    I would have no problem with a group Parliament representing over 50% of the election vote enacting such a policy.

    That said, all of this assumes a general election after the EU grants us another extension, which is by no means guaranteed.
  • The future of TV looks bleak if all of the best 100 shows of the 21st century were made in the first 19 years.

    The Thick of It* and the Nordic Noir are my choices. Generally avoid US stuff.

    *New series airing on BBC Parliament
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    madmacs said:

    As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).

    I disagree that it'd be undemocratic. This is just the way our democracy (currently) works. And since the referendum was advisory, any government has the right to determine that it wouldn't be in the UK's best interests to implement the people's wishes.

    What would be wrong, I think, would be to revoke and then not to have a new referendum at some future date. As has been pointed out, the LibDems did campaign for quite some time for a referendum, and if the first referendum is nullified it needs to be replaced.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal.

    This is the emptiest Brexit slogan of all. And in such a strong field of numbing, witless vacuums, that takes some doing.
  • kle4 said:

    That's a difference of whether it is a good idea, not whether they can do it and have what, under our system, amounts to a mandate to do it.

    No, it's exactly a question of whether under our unwritten and ever-changing constitution there would be a mandate to do it. I would say there wouldn't be. Whether one likes it or not, there was a referendum, and Leave won it. Asking voters whether, three years later and with much dirty water under the bridge, they still want to go ahead is one thing; simply cancelling the whole idea on a plurality is extremely questionable.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Looking down the top 100, I’ve seen an episode of Line Of Duty, all of The Killing, the Blue Planet, some Big Brother*, some Bake Off*, most of the Good Wife*, some of South Park, some of Doctor Who, a fair amount of Sherlock, Planet Earth, some Inbetweeners, Gavin & Stacey, some Strictly*, some Gogglebox, some I’m A Celebrity*.

    *Not my choice.

    I don’t watch much TV and I don’t feel I’ve missed out much. I’ve not heard of about a third of the list.
  • On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.

    I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.

    Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.

    It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.

    (*) And IMO is unlikely.
    If they can't make it happen, why mention it?
    Because the minor parties always have to play to win: they have to say what would happen *when* they win, even if it is unlikely. Otherwise they're leaving themselves open to the questions: "So what happens when you win? Oh, so you don't think you'll win?"

    It's a fallback position.
    The trouble is that it gets them into a knot. Do they support a second referendum or not? The answer seems to be Yes in practice, No in the far-flung reaches of the probability space where they get a majority. This is going to be hard to explain (as well as being dubious in democratic terms, as others have explained).
    Indeed. They've managed to turn a clear policy into a muddle.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,899

    Good summary from OGH. It's a much better piece of positioning than it is a policy. While I'm queasy about it myself I think it can work well for them as long as they are never in a position to implement it.

    They are experts at dropping policies, lots of form on that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a mle in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    Except we are heading headlong for no-deal, and during the referendum campaign leavers were giving all sorts of fluffy views of Brexit - and many of those were for a deal, e.g. for EEA or a Norway-style deal.

    No-deal - and especially the chaotic, disorganised no-deal we'll be getting - is a bait-and-switch on the electorate. It can be claimed to be undemocratic, and I have some sympathy with that view.
    It's not the fault of the electorate that we are governed by cowards, morons and hypocrites. who refuse to pass an EU deal, even when it is offered, three times. it is not the fault of the electorate that MPs are voting down a Deal because half of them secretly want to Remain, and another chunk are fetishising the worst deal possible.

    It is not the fault of the voters that parliament is not fit-for-purpose. So we must get rid of it, and start again, with an election.
    It's partly our fault as we reward their behaviour. If they thought it would hurt them fewer would have taken their remainerism or no deal fetishism so far.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    malcolmg said:

    Anorak said:

    Admirably clear policy. Unlike Labour's dog's dinner.

    How it plays out at the ballot box remains (geddit) to be seen, but it undeniably gives a lot of disaffected people a political home to go to.

    [Edit: poor old SquareRoot]

    Easy to come up with rubbish like this when you know you have absolutely no chance of ever needing to implement it.
    There's a comparison with the Monster Raving Loony Party in there somewhere.
  • I don't think you can really describe the Lib Dem policy as undemocratic given that they are proposing it in a free and fair election, and if people disagree with it they won't vote for it. FWIW even as a "diehard Remainer" I wouldn't vote for this, but then I wouldn't vote Lib Dem anyway.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,445

    On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.

    I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.

    Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.

    It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.

    (*) And IMO is unlikely.
    If they can't make it happen, why mention it?
    Because the minor parties always have to play to win: they have to say what would happen *when* they win, even if it is unlikely. Otherwise they're leaving themselves open to the questions: "So what happens when you win? Oh, so you don't think you'll win?"

    It's a fallback position.
    For the smaller parties, a Manifesto is what they will be negotiating for if they want a coalition or to provide votes through C&S. Sensible people do not claim that a minor party is going to jump from 12 MPs to largest party in two and a half years.
  • isam said:

    Can’t see how a government winning a majority implementing its manifesto can be thought of as a bad thing. It would be our bad luck if Lib Dem’s won a narrow majority and cancelled Brexit, but what can you do?

    Whining, stamping your feet and refusing to accept the result when you lose is for Remainers... be better than that!

    The Lib Dems, who have been saying how unfair FPTP is for their entire existence and wanting PR, using it as justification to overturn a referendum result with a 35% vote share would be rather shallow.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,462

    Anorak said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    Jesus H Christ. If a party had a policy of adopting the dollar, or slaughtering every cat in the UK, and were elected on that platform, then OF COURSE they have every right to do those things, however much some people would despise it*.

    That's why manifestos are - by and large - moderate, because anything extreme is toxic and doesn't get them elected.

    * I'm ok with the cat thing.
    (Harsh on Cat Deeley....)
    She lives in California so would thankfully escape the cull.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    All this canceling brexit is for the wealthy londoners fails to remember the extremely wealthy leavers who featured in yesterday’s and financed it and stand to gain most from it.
  • One of the reasons why I have always been in favour of PR is that it makes it a whole lot harder for a government elected with minority support to impose policies on the country that the majority reject.

    I welcome Byronic and other Leave supporters to my side!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,302

    And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.

    It's purpose is to make it seem credible that she could be PM and thereby encourage people to vote for her. That is why it is constantly repeated. It isn't arrogant and self-important. It is to change mindsets. I'm sorry it upsets you though. I hope it doesn't put you off voting LibDem.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,105

    isam said:

    Can’t see how a government winning a majority implementing its manifesto can be thought of as a bad thing. It would be our bad luck if Lib Dem’s won a narrow majority and cancelled Brexit, but what can you do?

    Whining, stamping your feet and refusing to accept the result when you lose is for Remainers... be better than that!

    The Lib Dems, who have been saying how unfair FPTP is for their entire existence and wanting PR, using it as justification to overturn a referendum result with a 35% vote share would be rather shallow.
    They’d have their way, then change the rules so no one else can do the same in the future.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Looking down the top 100, I’ve seen an episode of Line Of Duty, all of The Killing, the Blue Planet, some Big Brother*, some Bake Off*, most of the Good Wife*, some of South Park, some of Doctor Who, a fair amount of Sherlock, Planet Earth, some Inbetweeners, Gavin & Stacey, some Strictly*, some Gogglebox, some I’m A Celebrity*.

    *Not my choice.

    I don’t watch much TV and I don’t feel I’ve missed out much. I’ve not heard of about a third of the list.
    You've missed out on probably the greatest cultural efflorescence in modern times: the Golden Age of TV Drama.

    You're like some Italian saying, in 1600, "Well I've not seen much of this new Renaissance stuff, but I don't feel like I've missed out".
  • Of course anyone that bothered by the possible success of the Lib Dem revoke policy would be campaigning for a referendum now.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited September 2019
    EDIT: duplicate post

    Am I the only person that is encountering a very glitchy PB comments system? It keeps fritzing out.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Not seen it - might look at an episode. You need to get back into The Wire. I found it helped to turn the subtitles on for the first few episodes.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.

    But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.

    However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
    The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicated on No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.

    And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.

    Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
    Johnson getting a deal fires up the BXP betrayal narrative.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    dixiedean said:

    Sorry. Can't vote LD with that policy.

    I'm quite glad that the LibDems have injected a bit of dogma into our increasingly wishy-washy political landscape. Not least because the LibDem vote needs to be depressed (and the Brexit Party vote needs to be increased) in order for us to avoid a Boris majority government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434
    edited September 2019
    On the TV list as I am a bit of a reverse snob a lot of 'top' stuff like MadMen I tried and got very bored by. Ignorre the firtst season and Parks and Recreation should be higher up the list though. I'm also far more used to watching US TV so a lot of the British stuff has passed me by. But I think the general output of TV in the last few decades has been fantastic, even with all the dross that also exists. So many good shows.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    I notice that the big defection from Labour turned out to be a damp squib, in the end being some minor flunky of Sadiq Khan

    The defection from the Tories turned out to be the damp squib of some mardy-arse who couldn't get the required number of proposers for his run at being PM.

    *titter*
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    If Remain had won the referendum (they might as well have done) then UKIP had won a majority at the next election with a pledge to leave the EU, I would have been all for it, so the reverse has to be ok.

    The slight snag is that, in my hypothetical Remain winning scenario, we would have remained, whereas in Leave winning real life, we haven’t left. But that’s why it is the most outrageous elephant in the room in the history of elephant containing rooms.
  • Barnesian said:

    And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.

    It's purpose is to make it seem credible that she could be PM and thereby encourage people to vote for her. That is why it is constantly repeated. It isn't arrogant and self-important. It is to change mindsets. I'm sorry it upsets you though. I hope it doesn't put you off voting LibDem.
    It doesn't upset me, but I think it will put off others. She needs to earn respect and credibility first; at the moment she's a largely unknown leader of a minor party. She should leave it to others to say whether or not she's becoming a major figure.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Incredible bad manners from Luxembourg to not provide a press conference location without rentamob wankers heckling the PM.

    Quite correct for Boris to tell them to get stuffed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,187
    So Boris has prorogued the press conference too? Is there any question he won't avoid?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,899
    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    I have seen neither the Sopranos nor the Wire. I maybe watch a couple of programmes a month via the internet because I choose to. I dislike using the TV as a default method of passing the time.
    Amazing.
    Same here I have never watched either.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477

    isam said:

    Can’t see how a government winning a majority implementing its manifesto can be thought of as a bad thing. It would be our bad luck if Lib Dem’s won a narrow majority and cancelled Brexit, but what can you do?

    Whining, stamping your feet and refusing to accept the result when you lose is for Remainers... be better than that!

    The Lib Dems, who have been saying how unfair FPTP is for their entire existence and wanting PR, using it as justification to overturn a referendum result with a 35% vote share would be rather shallow.
    Politicians, hypocrites who use the levers of power presented to them? Whodathunk?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,699

    Sorry if I am the 100th person to mention this, but presumably the LibDems will be supportive of Scottish Independence without a referendum if the SNP and Scottish Greens have a majority in Holyrood following the next Scottish election.

    The SNP and Greens already do ... and the LDS are agin it. Indeed Ms Swinson went out of her way to confirm that at the LD conference, I believe.
  • Noo said:

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal.

    This is the emptiest Brexit slogan of all. And in such a strong field of numbing, witless vacuums, that takes some doing.
    Rubbish.

    You cannot negotiate a half decent deal unless you can walk away from an unattractive offer. Removing no deal as an option just encourages the EU to be unswerving in their demands.. This is rule 1 in the negotiating play-book.

    Fortunately the British public seem to understand that.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    Barnesian said:

    And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.

    It's purpose is to make it seem credible that she could be PM and thereby encourage people to vote for her. That is why it is constantly repeated. It isn't arrogant and self-important. It is to change mindsets. I'm sorry it upsets you though. I hope it doesn't put you off voting LibDem.
    +1

    Parties cannot go into an election honestly admitting that they're going to lose. People are willing to vote for an underdog, but they don't like voting for losers.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Byronic said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Looking down the top 100, I’ve seen an episode of Line Of Duty, all of The Killing, the Blue Planet, some Big Brother*, some Bake Off*, most of the Good Wife*, some of South Park, some of Doctor Who, a fair amount of Sherlock, Planet Earth, some Inbetweeners, Gavin & Stacey, some Strictly*, some Gogglebox, some I’m A Celebrity*.

    *Not my choice.

    I don’t watch much TV and I don’t feel I’ve missed out much. I’ve not heard of about a third of the list.
    You've missed out on probably the greatest cultural efflorescence in modern times: the Golden Age of TV Drama.

    You're like some Italian saying, in 1600, "Well I've not seen much of this new Renaissance stuff, but I don't feel like I've missed out".
    I thought similar.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    Incredible bad manners from Luxembourg to not provide a press conference location without rentamob wankers heckling the PM.

    Quite correct for Boris to tell them to get stuffed.

    The Incredible Hulk is a coward who ran away...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    Byronic said:

    It's not the fault of the electorate that we are governed by cowards, morons and hypocrites. who refuse to pass an EU deal, even when it is offered, three times. it is not the fault of the electorate that MPs are voting down a Deal because half of them secretly want to Remain, and another chunk are fetishising the worst deal possible.

    It is not the fault of the voters that parliament is not fit-for-purpose. So we must get rid of it, and start again, with an election.

    SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!!?!!!!????????????

    Ahem.

    What would you do? We are at an impasse, parliament has legislated against the government's preferred option, the deal has (to date - I still live in hope) not passed in the House of Commons, and no one can do anything.

    The LDs are coming out unambiguously for an idea. You don't like it, which is fine in fact that means there must be some merit to it, but it is wholly in accordance with our political system. Don't like that system? Fine, campaign to change it. Get the votes with a simple majority, say 36% of the vote and change it.

    Until then stop whining.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844

    Barnesian said:

    And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.

    It's purpose is to make it seem credible that she could be PM and thereby encourage people to vote for her. That is why it is constantly repeated. It isn't arrogant and self-important. It is to change mindsets. I'm sorry it upsets you though. I hope it doesn't put you off voting LibDem.
    It doesn't upset me, but I think it will put off others. She needs to earn respect and credibility first; at the moment she's a largely unknown leader of a minor party. She should leave it to others to say whether or not she's becoming a major figure.
    Richard, voters such as yourself who apply logic right through the "Who should I vote for" process are incredibly, amazingly sui generis I reckon ;)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,699
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/16/rnli-donations-surge-tory-criticism-work-overseas-lifeboat-charity

    To follow up the discussion the other day.

    The Daily Mail comments are quite an eye-opener, about 10:1 against the RNLI for helping foreign little girls, and even attacking the RNLI for its Irish activities.
  • The future of TV looks bleak if all of the best 100 shows of the 21st century were made in the first 19 years.

    The Thick of It* and the Nordic Noir are my choices. Generally avoid US stuff.

    *New series airing on BBC Parliament

    There isnt much good new tv at the moment. I mean the fact the reluctant landlord got a first season, let alone a second , suggests somewhat of a dearth out there.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Watching Xavier Bettel on the TV it seems that Boris has rattled more than a few feathers this morning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434
    Dadge said:

    Barnesian said:

    And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.

    It's purpose is to make it seem credible that she could be PM and thereby encourage people to vote for her. That is why it is constantly repeated. It isn't arrogant and self-important. It is to change mindsets. I'm sorry it upsets you though. I hope it doesn't put you off voting LibDem.
    +1

    Parties cannot go into an election honestly admitting that they're going to lose. People are willing to vote for an underdog, but they don't like voting for losers.
    See the 2017 LD manifesto, which opened with a pitch to be the next lead opposition rather than win, and flitted back and forth inconsistently between things they would do if they won a majority, and how they would act as opposition.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Looking down the top 100, I’ve seen an episode of Line Of Duty, all of The Killing, the Blue Planet, some Big Brother*, some Bake Off*, most of the Good Wife*, some of South Park, some of Doctor Who, a fair amount of Sherlock, Planet Earth, some Inbetweeners, Gavin & Stacey, some Strictly*, some Gogglebox, some I’m A Celebrity*.

    *Not my choice.

    I don’t watch much TV and I don’t feel I’ve missed out much. I’ve not heard of about a third of the list.
    You are missing out. Get some of the higher rated series and enjoy yourself*.

    *the Good Wife is excellent, sounds like someone in your household has a good appreciation of dramatic art.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,699
    TGOHF said:

    Incredible bad manners from Luxembourg to not provide a press conference location without rentamob wankers heckling the PM.

    Quite correct for Boris to tell them to get stuffed.

    How do you know it wasn't deliberately chosen by Mr Johnson?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Tabman said:

    Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.

    But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.

    However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
    The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicated on No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.

    And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.

    Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
    Johnson getting a deal fires up the BXP betrayal narrative.
    There'll be about fourteen people prepared to build the barricades for A Different Type Of Brexit......

    Even they will be down to seven by the weekend.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,041

    Noo said:

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal.

    This is the emptiest Brexit slogan of all. And in such a strong field of numbing, witless vacuums, that takes some doing.
    Rubbish.

    You cannot negotiate a half decent deal unless you can walk away from an unattractive offer. Removing no deal as an option just encourages the EU to be unswerving in their demands.. This is rule 1 in the negotiating play-book.

    Fortunately the British public seem to understand that.
    So, we're prepared for No Deal, are we?

  • Byronic said:


    It's not the fault of the electorate that we are governed by cowards, morons and hypocrites. who refuse to pass an EU deal, even when it is offered, three times. it is not the fault of the electorate that MPs are voting down a Deal because half of them secretly want to Remain, and another chunk are fetishising the worst deal possible.

    It is not the fault of the voters that parliament is not fit-for-purpose. So we must get rid of it, and start again, with an election.

    Perhaps instead of solely blaming remainers, you can throw some of your righteous ire at the ERGers, Farage and the Brexit Party, who also did a good amount of work to kill May's deal.

    But that probably cuts a little close to home ... ;)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972
    malcolmg said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    I have seen neither the Sopranos nor the Wire. I maybe watch a couple of programmes a month via the internet because I choose to. I dislike using the TV as a default method of passing the time.
    Amazing.
    Same here I have never watched either.
    Malcolm get yourself along to Blockbusters and grab the whole lot on video. You won't regret it.
  • eristdoof said:



    I personally wondered if their approach here might be too blatant and not nuanced enough as well, but based on my wife's unprompted reaction (who is not massively political at all) it might perhaps work.

    Her comment was "great news on the LD policy, I will definitely vote for them now" - I don't think she has ever referenced them before....

    I'm sure there are very many voters who think that "Brexit is bad for the country", want to have their message heard, and so will vote LD. Likewise I do not expect many 2017 LD voters to be lost, due to the LD policy on Brexit going against the 2016 Referendum result.

    The politicos can argue (or argue against) that the LDs are "playing a dangerous game with democracy", but it will almost crtainly be a net vote winner.
    I doubt it will be a vote winner for the LDs - but I applaud the logic. It makes more sense than a 2nd ref on essentially bogus terms as any second ref would be. In 2017 Tim Farron was able to say to leavers, you can still vote for us as Brexit will happen. This time he can't and he won't be the only one with a problem.

    Even the 53% or so remain won't help in Westmorland and perhaps other constituencies - the LDs put out SIX remain leaflets - Leave none except what was sent and they STILL only got 53%.

    It will all be about getting the vote out but there are a lot of constituencies away from London where this policy will not be helpful. Last time Farron's near problem wasn't getting the vote out, it was whether the vote was still there to get out. That will be the problem in the South west as well.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,900
    Saw this amazing series, midseason cliffhanger last week. Mad new lead character causing chaos. Comes back mid-October with denouement on 31 October. Scriptwriters clearly high on something.
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    PB is an echo chamber. And effectively a companion site to LibDem.org

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,434
    edited September 2019

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.

    Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?

    Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.

    Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.

    We joined the EU without a referendum, didn't we? Everything that ever happened in the UK was done without referenda prior to 1975.

    The Tories have made very clear that they see a majority secured on 35% of the vote as a mandate to take us out of the EU without a deal.

    You were one of the PB Remainers whingeing, endlessly, about Boris proroguing, and the "bad precedent" it set - "imagine if Corbyn was able to suspend parliament to get legislation through" blah blah bleeaahhh

    Now a major UK party wants to annul the biggest democratic mandate received by any party or policy in the history of our country. 17.4 million votes, on a historically high turnout. All that will simply be ignored, and the people who voted for it will know, in future, that their votes don't county any more, and democracy isn't for them, it is for posh people in London.

    And this is just fine by you.

    Jesus fucking Christ. Look at yourself. All of you. Look at yourselves. Brexit has driven you mad.
    PB is an echo chamber. And effectively a companion site to LibDem.org

    Oh that is amusing given how many times the PB Tories and PB Tory adjacent were accused of dominance. But given how often you use it, incorrectly as many people push back at the OGH/TSE narrative, you clearly have no idea what an echo chamber is.

    It isn't merely a place which is not proportionate to the politics of the country and does indeed lean wet tory/LD more than the national average.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    isam said:

    Byronic said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    O/T fpt:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    In an attempt to derail the thread, what is missing from this list ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/16/100-best-tv-shows-of-the-21st-century

    I have watched a lot of telly in my time but have seen just 2 of the top 10 - The Office and Fleabag.

    Surprised - and slightly perturbed - by this.
    Extraordinary. Of course people can argue the toss between The Sopranos and The Wire but not to have seen either.

    What on earth is your demographic?
    Number 78 is one of my favourite ever shows. The Guardian are good at something at least.
    I have seen one episode of one of the top ten (the pilot of Breaking Bad).
    Blimey. I think I’ve watched every episode of The Sopranos, The Office and Peep Show, but not anything else in the top 10 except a few episodes of The Wire.

    Freaks & Geeks is a hidden gem.
    Looking down the top 100, I’ve seen an episode of Line Of Duty, all of The Killing, the Blue Planet, some Big Brother*, some Bake Off*, most of the Good Wife*, some of South Park, some of Doctor Who, a fair amount of Sherlock, Planet Earth, some Inbetweeners, Gavin & Stacey, some Strictly*, some Gogglebox, some I’m A Celebrity*.

    *Not my choice.

    I don’t watch much TV and I don’t feel I’ve missed out much. I’ve not heard of about a third of the list.
    You've missed out on probably the greatest cultural efflorescence in modern times: the Golden Age of TV Drama.

    You're like some Italian saying, in 1600, "Well I've not seen much of this new Renaissance stuff, but I don't feel like I've missed out".
    I thought similar.
    I have a lady novelist friend who had the same position as Signor Meeks. "Oh TV is rather over-rated, I don't see much anyway. I'm not missing out", then she would bang on about some obscure Icelandic feminist novel I simply HAD to read.

    About a year ago she decided she wanted to write some TV, as novels weren't selling. So I told her she would bloody well have to watch some, then. Finally she yielded and she asked me to giver her a list of the best dramas of the Golden Age, from The Sopranos to the Killing, and all points between.

    Six months later, after watching everything, she called me up, and said. "OMG. It's all brilliant. It is incredible. I never knew TV had got so good. What have I been missing! The novel is finished."

    I think she was overreacting, but it was a fascinating learning curve to witness.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038

    Noo said:

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal.

    This is the emptiest Brexit slogan of all. And in such a strong field of numbing, witless vacuums, that takes some doing.
    Rubbish.

    You cannot negotiate a half decent deal unless you can walk away from an unattractive offer. Removing no deal as an option just encourages the EU to be unswerving in their demands.. This is rule 1 in the negotiating play-book.

    Fortunately the British public seem to understand that.
    Noo is right. No Deal is damaging to the UK. The idea that we should "keep it on the table" in order to help our negotiating chances is logically ridiculous. Also, the UK and EU re trading partners. The idea that the EU is trying to get us to sign a deal that's damaging to us is also logically ridiculous.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Of course anyone that bothered by the possible success of the Lib Dem revoke policy would be campaigning for a referendum now.

    Ah - you've spotted it :smile:
  • Chris said:

    Noo said:

    If you want a deal, prepare for no-deal.

    This is the emptiest Brexit slogan of all. And in such a strong field of numbing, witless vacuums, that takes some doing.
    Rubbish.

    You cannot negotiate a half decent deal unless you can walk away from an unattractive offer. Removing no deal as an option just encourages the EU to be unswerving in their demands.. This is rule 1 in the negotiating play-book.

    Fortunately the British public seem to understand that.
    So, we're prepared for No Deal, are we?

    I dont know. Better than we were Less than we should have been had we not had the wretched Hammond vetoing preparations.

    But no deal will be considerably less disruptive than the doomster pretend , in my view.
This discussion has been closed.