Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI has the LDs at a post-GE2010 high with a big increa

2456

Comments

  • isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    I don't know whether anyone else has commented, but it will be interesting to see how voters see her if there is a live TV debate. My guess is they will be very tempted when she is seen as the alternative to the two misogynistic dinosaurs that by some bizarre twist of fate now lead our two "big" parties.

    Why would she be in any debates with the other two?
    Yep, that will be it. Boris will run away from the debates, or at least any but a head to head with Corbyn. Just as he ran away during the leadership contest, ran away in Luxembourg, ran away from parliament, and wishes he had run away from that NHS hospital. Why some people seem to think he is a confident and brave politician is beyond me.
    If there were to be a tv debate, it would be Boris vs Jezza, or everyone including the Greens, Farage, PC, Sturgeon etc, so the opportunity for a contrast between lovely wee Jo, and the horrid men wouldnt arise
    We need to move away from the very concept of debates. They are just noise and not good at eliciting anything useful.

    I would far rather have a panel interviewing each party leader individually - you are far more likely to expose flaws that way than in the back and forth of 'debates' - which are just an excuse to trot out soundbites and throw abuse.

    Proper detailed interviews with forensic questions would be far more use
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a very good point. The remedy to resist prorogation implicitly lies within parliament.<

    isam said:

    There may be increased awareness of Jo Swinson, but clearly not sufficient for OGH to spell her name correctly in the headline!

    Indeed, I have a friend who didn't realise until last week that she was a lady Jo rather than gentleman Joe.

    If she renounced her pronouns and went by "they" she might win back those lost student votes off Jezza
    Bozza's brother Jo uses the feminine spelling for some reason.
    Jo = Joanna, Joanne, Joseph, Josephine

    Joe = Joe ?
    you missed Jocinda
    Who could forget Jolyon.
  • Mr. Simon, I agree, but I think, alas, debates are here to stay. The media go all gooey over them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    RobD said:

    Six council by-elections tonight. On paper the LD's only really look like runners in one, but given the current state of politics, one never knows.
    See https://britainelects.com/category/council-by-elections/

    This ward looks suspiciously gerrymandered. What’s all that about?


    That doesn’t look particularly gerrymandered, just avoiding the town. If you want gerrymandered constituencies, check out the US congress.
    I’m aware of US congressional districts and how shameless they are.

    It just doesn’t look like a sensible local government boundary to me. Why would you not include the town and make it smaller?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    RobD said:

    Six council by-elections tonight. On paper the LD's only really look like runners in one, but given the current state of politics, one never knows.
    See https://britainelects.com/category/council-by-elections/

    This ward looks suspiciously gerrymandered. What’s all that about?


    That doesn’t look particularly gerrymandered, just avoiding the town. If you want gerrymandered constituencies, check out the US congress.
    While that's true (about Congress) weird shapes like this are one of the side effects of FPTP. Gets very difficult for the residents to understand.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a very good point. The remedy to resist prorogation implicitly lies within parliament.<

    isam said:

    There may be increased awareness of Jo Swinson, but clearly not sufficient for OGH to spell her name correctly in the headline!

    Indeed, I have a friend who didn't realise until last week that she was a lady Jo rather than gentleman Joe.

    If she renounced her pronouns and went by "they" she might win back those lost student votes off Jezza
    Bozza's brother Jo uses the feminine spelling for some reason.
    Jo = Joanna, Joanne, Joseph, Josephine

    Joe = Joe ?
    you missed Jocinda
    Who could forget Jolyon.
    He talks about you in his sleep
    And there's nothing I can do to keep
    From crying when he calls your name
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    I see that Flavible has Raab losing his seat. Nice.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    I don't know whether anyone else has commented, but it will be interesting to see how voters see her if there is a live TV debate. My guess is they will be very tempted when she is seen as the alternative to the two misogynistic dinosaurs that by some bizarre twist of fate now lead our two "big" parties.

    Why would she be in any debates with the other two?
    Yep, that will be it. Boris will run away from the debates, or at least any but a head to head with Corbyn. Just as he ran away during the leadership contest, ran away in Luxembourg, ran away from parliament, and wishes he had run away from that NHS hospital. Why some people seem to think he is a confident and brave politician is beyond me.
    If there were to be a tv debate, it would be Boris vs Jezza, or everyone including the Greens, Farage, PC, Sturgeon etc, so the opportunity for a contrast between lovely wee Jo, and the horrid men wouldnt arise
    We need to move away from the very concept of debates. They are just noise and not good at eliciting anything useful.

    I would far rather have a panel interviewing each party leader individually - you are far more likely to expose flaws that way than in the back and forth of 'debates' - which are just an excuse to trot out soundbites and throw abuse.

    Proper detailed interviews with forensic questions would be far more use
    I make you right, they are just slanging matches, and insincere ones at that. Same goes for QT and Politics Live etc in the main

    The Norway option...

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/please-let-me-finish-the-norwegian-political-tv-debate-where-politeness-wins-9t6nqs0xt

  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    Good visual explanation and simulation here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg

    It's reassuring that pro mathematicians were, at first, equally perplexed and disbelieving
  • Are the Germans beginning to get a certain wetness in the groin about No Deal?
    "Playing with Fire"
    https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/brexit-unternehmen-103.html
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Scott_P said:
    Scott P's useless tweet from his FBPE timeline number 1,376,555
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    RobD said:

    Six council by-elections tonight. On paper the LD's only really look like runners in one, but given the current state of politics, one never knows.
    See https://britainelects.com/category/council-by-elections/

    This ward looks suspiciously gerrymandered. What’s all that about?


    That doesn’t look particularly gerrymandered, just avoiding the town. If you want gerrymandered constituencies, check out the US congress.
    I’m aware of US congressional districts and how shameless they are.

    It just doesn’t look like a sensible local government boundary to me. Why would you not include the town and make it smaller?
    Parish boundaries I would have thought.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    RobD said:

    Six council by-elections tonight. On paper the LD's only really look like runners in one, but given the current state of politics, one never knows.
    See https://britainelects.com/category/council-by-elections/

    This ward looks suspiciously gerrymandered. What’s all that about?


    That doesn’t look particularly gerrymandered, just avoiding the town. If you want gerrymandered constituencies, check out the US congress.
    I’m aware of US congressional districts and how shameless they are.

    It just doesn’t look like a sensible local government boundary to me. Why would you not include the town and make it smaller?
    How the US has the effrontery to pontificate about its 'democracy' to others is a mystery to me.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Byronic said:

    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    Good visual explanation and simulation here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg

    It's reassuring that pro mathematicians were, at first, equally perplexed and disbelieving
    It is a wonderful demonstration at how terrible we are as humans about intuiting probability.

    It says something about the human condition.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,485

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Really can’t see City of Durham going Lib Dem no matter how much I would like it to.
    It's thoroughly silly.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
  • TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The President of the Supreme Court indicates a decision "early next week".

    I'm opting for Parliament to be sitting by next Thursday/Friday.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    I see that Flavible has Raab losing his seat. Nice.

    I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the Commons and look at how we get elected, we are particularly reliant on receiving more votes than the next candidate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    Byronic said:

    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    Good visual explanation and simulation here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg

    It's reassuring that pro mathematicians were, at first, equally perplexed and disbelieving
    I’m still deeply suspicious. The experts said it wasn’t so, after all. :p
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979
    JackW said:

    The President of the Supreme Court indicates a decision "early next week".

    I'm opting for Parliament to be sitting by next Thursday/Friday.

    It would be funny if after all this there is a vote for a recess for the conferences.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    I'm sure someone might be able to explain...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596
    Freggles said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Really can’t see City of Durham going Lib Dem no matter how much I would like it to.
    It's thoroughly silly.
    That was the consensus on the YouGov seat model last time, until the results came through.

    Flavible is attempting to factor in demographic, EU referendum, EU election and local election results into its predictions. It is therefore identifying those seats where the LibDems are likely to overperform the national swing (the examples above seem very credible to me).

    Doubtless its assumptions are likely to be off but assuming an even swing next time will certainly be off.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Gabs2 said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
    Why? Berwick was always a Liberal stronghold.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Charter a plane?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    "I’ve just completed an Opinium survey that wanted to know my constituency and what I would do given, as the questionnaire said, this would be a battle between LAB and CON."

    Not good at all to hear that Opinium have been push-polling like this.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,951
    Byronic said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    The overnight ferry from Birkenhead can be interesting.
    Will it involve me being shackled to an oarsman?

    Because it isn't a deal breaker when the alternative is Ryanair and Easyjet.
    Easyjet are great. Just pay a bit extra for Easyjet Plus and Speedy Boarding. Front row seats, fast track security, first dibs on the booze, loads of luggage space.

    I use it all the time and it's arguably better than BA Biz class for short haul, and about a quarter the price.

    +1, it is surprisingly good, especially if you have some kind of lounge access
  • The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Gabs2 said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
    Whyever not? 48% of the country voted to Remain in the referendum. And the Lib Dems are very clearly 100% in favour of remaining.

    As well as being reliable, consistent, competent and experienced in government.

    What can you say in favour of Corbyn`s Labour Party?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596
    Byronic said:

    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    Good visual explanation and simulation here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg

    It's reassuring that pro mathematicians were, at first, equally perplexed and disbelieving

    In words, isn’t it simply that the box you have chosen has a 1 in 1000 chance of being right - and this probability cannot be changed by the host opening all the other empty boxes. Therefore the remaining unopened box accounts for the remaining 999 chances.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    They ask what remedy the claimant is seeking and how they could accommodate that if ruling in their favour
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    I don’t imagine they’ll do anything if sitting.

    Edit: I take that back. I can imagine a day’s business devoted to tributes to the departing speaker.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596
    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    My guess would be:

    a) resuming is itself another dent to Bozo’s credibility
    b) whilst sitting there will be further chances to damage him further
    c) being in session enables them to react quickly to close off any cunning plans Bozo is fed by his little demon - in particular he can be VONC’d right away if, for example, he appears set on breaking the law.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    They ask what remedy the claimant is seeking and how they could accommodate that if ruling in their favour
    OK. Then that seems procedure, and not “extremely important”. They don’t need to ask the other side as nothing has to be done in that case.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    GIN1138 said:

    Baxter gives Con a majority of 78 based on MORI - getting close to landslide territy now. :D

    UNS has no majority at all.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    They can hold BoZo in contempt of Parliament if he ignores the Benn Act I believe.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    They can hold BoZo in contempt of Parliament if he ignores the Benn Act I believe.
    They’d be able to do that anyway since it will be sitting by the time is is even possible to do that.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    They ask what remedy the claimant is seeking and how they could accommodate that if ruling in their favour
    OK. Then that seems procedure, and not “extremely important”. They don’t need to ask the other side as nothing has to be done in that case.
    It was a Twitter message.

    This may be foundation of the only remaining positive legacy for a Mr D Cameron (former PM)
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    Dinah Rose's timeline is littered with anti Tory and anti Brexit bile for as far back as you can go. Take her views with a pinch of salt.
  • RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    Because Lord Keen for the government argued that it would be up to the government. The judges are asking the claimant what he thinks it should be - he argues not the government. IIRC he said it would be up to the speakers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    They ask what remedy the claimant is seeking and how they could accommodate that if ruling in their favour
    OK. Then that seems procedure, and not “extremely important”. They don’t need to ask the other side as nothing has to be done in that case.
    It was a Twitter message.

    This may be foundation of the only remaining positive legacy for a Mr D Cameron (former PM)
    I think from now on I will judge the importance of a tweet inversely proportional to how important the tweeter claims it to be.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Sky reporting Joanna Cherry seems very confident and that the discussions with Pannick about remedy a 'bad sign' for the government. I'm unsure. Justiciability may be the key factor here.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    IanB2 said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    My guess would be:

    a) resuming is itself another dent to Bozo’s credibility
    b) whilst sitting there will be further chances to damage him further
    c) being in session enables them to react quickly to close off any cunning plans Bozo is fed by his little demon - in particular he can be VONC’d right away if, for example, he appears set on breaking the law.
    so basically political fking about and they go down another notch in public opinion

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,369
    edited September 2019
    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    Dinah Rose's timeline is littered with anti Tory and anti Brexit bile for as far back as you can go. Take her views with a pinch of salt.
    Dinah Rose is an eminent QC who has regularly argued (and won) in front of the Supreme Court.

    What are your legal credentials so we can compare?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    I think that the importance of the ruling will depend more on the constraints if any it places on future actions by Boris and future PMs, than on the exact date of parliament reconvening.
  • RobD said:

    Byronic said:

    RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    From the previous thread, the Monty Hall problem is most intuitive if you have 1000 boxes and only one has a prize. You pick Box 237 and then the host opens all the other boxes, except Box 819, and the others are all prizeless. You then get to choose to stay on 237 or swap to 819. What do you do?

    I feel I’m going to regret this...

    Do I swap?
    Yes, you have a 1 in 1000 chance to win if you stay and a 999 in 1000 chance if you swap.
    Thank god.
    I can’t get my head round why it isn’t 50/50. :D
    Good visual explanation and simulation here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_djTy3G0pg

    It's reassuring that pro mathematicians were, at first, equally perplexed and disbelieving
    I’m still deeply suspicious. The experts said it wasn’t so, after all. :p
    Well it all boils down to The Principle of Restriced Choice. When there are 3 doors and you choose one of them, then 2/3 of the time this will have a goat, so 2/3 of the time the host has one door with the car behind. He therefore can't open that door - his choice is restriced. He open the one he does because he has to. Its therefore twice as likely that the car is behind the hosts' other door than it was behind your original choice.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    Pulpstar said:
    How long have they had all these in their back pockets?
  • Gabs2 said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
    Indeed even with the benefits of decades of accumulated encumbancy and tactical voting they didn't come close to these numbers in either 2005 or 2010 despite polling similar figures.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,369
    edited September 2019
    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    Pulpstar said:
    what have Canadians got against a BAME prime minister ?
  • glwglw Posts: 8,869
    Pulpstar said:

    3rd blacking up for Trudeau

    Is he a blackface addict?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Telegraph journo is /deeply/ unimpressed with HMG today:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174624712288284672
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
  • Pulpstar said:
    what have Canadians got against a BAME prime minister ?
    Blackface is what you’d expect from incestuous Morris Dancers, racists, and Francophiles.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7467397/Morris-Dancers-face-banned-performing-blackface-shocked-rambler-28-complained.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    glw said:

    Pulpstar said:

    3rd blacking up for Trudeau

    Is he a blackface addict?
    Wait till they find his jam jar collection
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    Clearly this is all part of Dom’s masterplan. I hear ya.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited September 2019

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    I think that the importance of the ruling will depend more on the constraints if any it places on future actions by Boris and future PMs, than on the exact date of parliament reconvening.
    A Prorogation Bill is likely to find its way into the Lib Dem manifesto, at the very least. Limits on frequency & duration, that sort of thing...
  • RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,596

    Pulpstar said:
    what have Canadians got against a BAME prime minister ?
    Blackface is what you’d expect from incestuous Morris Dancers, racists, and Francophiles.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7467397/Morris-Dancers-face-banned-performing-blackface-shocked-rambler-28-complained.html
    Well the name does come from Moorish Dancers, originally.
  • The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


    This may be getting a little out of perspective. Only in the mind of HYUFD is everything seen through the prism of Brexit. There will be a considerable number of lifelong tribal Tories and tribal Labour supporters who may disagree on their party's position on Brexit, but will still vote tribally nonetheless. It would be interesting to see how flakey or otherwise that position is. Will Labour leave voters vote Tory ? Not many I suspect. Will many younger otherwise Tory voting folk vote LD? Quite likely. The question will be how significant this is on polling day when it actually matters. I bottled voting LD at the last GE. I won't do so this time.
  • Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    I think that the importance of the ruling will depend more on the constraints if any it places on future actions by Boris and future PMs, than on the exact date of parliament reconvening.
    A Prorogation Bill is likely to find its way into the Lib Dem manifesto, at the very least. Limits on frequency & duration, that sort of thing...
    I was surprised that there was no limit!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    Pulpstar said:
    what have Canadians got against a BAME prime minister ?
    Blackface is what you’d expect from incestuous Morris Dancers, racists, and Francophiles.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7467397/Morris-Dancers-face-banned-performing-blackface-shocked-rambler-28-complained.html
    well on that basis can we ban James Bond for Whitefacing ?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
  • RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    Clearly this is all part of Dom’s masterplan. I hear ya.
    All of the twists and turns have been predicted by him. He is a modern day Nostradamus. Let us be as HYUFD would like us to be and praise his greatness and the genius of Boris
  • If Parliament does resume will Johnson have to appear in front of the Liaison Committee? The prorogue, entirely coincidentally of course and undoubtedly, meant the appearance that had been scheduled did not happen. Coincidentally.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    unlikely
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police

    I think the PSNI might see that differently
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    precedent please 😉
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
    also unlikely

    closing a Parliament with little credibility could be a plus
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


    This may be getting a little out of perspective. Only in the mind of HYUFD is everything seen through the prism of Brexit. There will be a considerable number of lifelong tribal Tories and tribal Labour supporters who may disagree on their party's position on Brexit, but will still vote tribally nonetheless. It would be interesting to see how flakey or otherwise that position is. Will Labour leave voters vote Tory ? Not many I suspect. Will many younger otherwise Tory voting folk vote LD? Quite likely. The question will be how significant this is on polling day when it actually matters. I bottled voting LD at the last GE. I won't do so this time.
    I live in Surbiton and a Labour supporter. Labour polls just above 10% in a good year. In 2015, I couldn't bring myself to vote LD. But in 2017 I did. In the Europeans, I voted Green. In the Mayoral, I vote Labour.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


    LibDems have a really interesting choice to make.

    Do they want to replace Labour as the preeminent Left Centre Left force in UK?

    If the answer is yes the first action they have to take is to gain the maximum vote share and seat tally.

    This means it is in the interests of the LibDems for Labour, SNP, Plaid, Tories to suffer losses and obviously to gain as many as possible themselves.

    After the next election if the seat tally is LibDem 80 Labour 160, Labour will remain the party of the Left by default. The LibDems have to reduce the gap between the parties to the greatest extent possible. If Labour are not in power they will then change leader and there is a strong possibility that a new Labour leader would oversee the decline of the LibDems to another period of irrelevance.

    They need grow into a major party to take on and defeat Labour. A major party will not encourage voters or supporters to vote for the party they wish to replace (Labour) in the national Parliament, This in the long term should be more important to them than beating the Tory party at the next election. However they will try to gain ex Labour supporters to vote for them to replace Tory MPs whilst not lending voters to Labour for the same purpose.

    If the LibDems decide that Revoke is the be all and end all, then tactical voting may well get them there between Labour and LibDems. It will leave Labour with more seats, maybe a C&S agreement, and in a perfect position to squash the resurgence out of the LibDems.

    A real dilemma. Revoke or the second chance in 20 years (after 2010 was the other) to replace Labour for the long term. I don't think they can achieve both.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    you dont understand how "influence" works do you ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited September 2019

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115

    Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police

    Does that include Northern Ireland?

    I do think ISIS blew it for most budding Islamic terrorists. Roasting Muslim babies to death in steel boxes and beheading everything that moved wasn't really a good look for those fancying a cosy caliphate.
  • Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police

    "The remainder were jihadist, which remains the biggest terrorist threat to the UK and has stabilised at a very high level after years of growth."

    If jihadism has stabilised, and far right has increased, what form has gone down?
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Noo said:

    Telegraph journo is /deeply/ unimpressed with HMG today:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174624712288284672

    The one good point that Barclay does make is that any NI backstop needs to be acceptable to both the Unionists and Nationalists. If it was just the DUP being against it, it would be one thing, but UUPers like Trimble are too.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
    Once Brexit is decided, one way or the other, Boris is done, only timescales will differ. Even if he gets us out with a deal there will be a rump of Tories who will hate him for the damage he's done or even risked doing to the party.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
    also unlikely

    closing a Parliament with little credibility could be a plus
    It'll follow every candidate for the Tories. Leaflets will basically write themselves. "Why vote for an MP who's happy to be shut out of parliament?"
    If you don't think this will do damage in the eyes of the moderate majority of the country, then you might be mistaking the politically entrenched geeks on here as normal. We aren't normal on here. This stuff will leave a stink around the Tories unless they nail it to Boris personally and eject him.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    isam said:

    Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police

    "The remainder were jihadist, which remains the biggest terrorist threat to the UK and has stabilised at a very high level after years of growth."

    If jihadism has stabilised, and far right has increased, what form has gone down?
    how do we know they were Jihadis ?

    it could have been a bunch of Canadian PMs on a night out.
  • Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?

    Is there anything in this world worse than Morris Dancing?
  • Gabs2 said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
    Indeed even with the benefits of decades of accumulated encumbancy and tactical voting they didn't come close to these numbers in either 2005 or 2010 despite polling similar figures.
    In FPTP your seats are dependent not on your share of the vote, but how it compares to that of other parties.

    With the Brexit Party, the Greens and the Nationalists taking more votes from the big two parties the winning post for the Lib Dems is at a lower level.

    Also, if the Lib Dems are now principally a repository for pro-Remain votes then their vote distribution may be more optimal than in 2010, when there was more of an element of being a diffuse "not either of those two" protest vote.

    That's not to say that I vouch for their model, but there are differences compared to 2010.
  • Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?

    Is there anything in this world worse than Morris Dancing?
    The traditional answer to that is incest.
  • philiph said:

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


    LibDems have a really interesting choice to make.

    Do they want to replace Labour as the preeminent Left Centre Left force in UK?

    If the answer is yes the first action they have to take is to gain the maximum vote share and seat tally.

    This means it is in the interests of the LibDems for Labour, SNP, Plaid, Tories to suffer losses and obviously to gain as many as possible themselves.

    After the next election if the seat tally is LibDem 80 Labour 160, Labour will remain the party of the Left by default. The LibDems have to reduce the gap between the parties to the greatest extent possible. If Labour are not in power they will then change leader and there is a strong possibility that a new Labour leader would oversee the decline of the LibDems to another period of irrelevance.

    They need grow into a major party to take on and defeat Labour. A major party will not encourage voters or supporters to vote for the party they wish to replace (Labour) in the national Parliament, This in the long term should be more important to them than beating the Tory party at the next election. However they will try to gain ex Labour supporters to vote for them to replace Tory MPs whilst not lending voters to Labour for the same purpose.

    If the LibDems decide that Revoke is the be all and end all, then tactical voting may well get them there between Labour and LibDems. It will leave Labour with more seats, maybe a C&S agreement, and in a perfect position to squash the resurgence out of the LibDems.

    A real dilemma. Revoke or the second chance in 20 years (after 2010 was the other) to replace Labour for the long term. I don't think they can achieve both.
    They're not centre-left. Under Swinson or Davey, they're a Centre Party and so are roughly as close to centre-right Tories such as Grieve or Clarke as to centre-left SDP-type Labour MPs like Watson or Cooper.

    Their USP used to be that they believed in civil liberties. Thatcher and Blair didn't appear to believe in them and in particular Blair wanted to abolish jury trial.
This discussion has been closed.